<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ext JS: A reminder that you are not alone</title>
	<atom:link href="http://almaer.com/blog/ext-js-a-reminder-that-you-are-not-alone/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://almaer.com/blog/ext-js-a-reminder-that-you-are-not-alone</link>
	<description>blogging about life, the universe, and everything tech</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:06:53 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: andy</title>
		<link>http://almaer.com/blog/ext-js-a-reminder-that-you-are-not-alone/comment-page-1#comment-38686</link>
		<dc:creator>andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 17:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://almaer.com/blog/ext-js-a-reminder-that-you-are-not-alone#comment-38686</guid>
		<description>I was using ext for one of my projects and was updating some stuff when I came across the ext licensing brouhaha all over the internet. I must say the licensing terms appeared sneaky from the beginning when I started using the library, but since what I wanted to use it for appeared to be LGPL licensed, I decided to go along with it. One of the major reasons I decided to use it was that ext appeared to do some pretty amazing stuff and with a really nice interface. BIG MISTAKE. The library was horrendously hard to learn and to use and debug, not in the least because:
a) For a lot of the stuff in the API (which appeared to be well documented but was really not because a lot of it was just repitition of not very helpful comments) there was no contextutal information which can quickly tell a developer how to use the api (to get an idea regarding what I&#039;m talking about, see jQuery API). Even YUI docs are better than ext.
b) Second, but more importantly, noobs were treated like crap in the forums.
With the benifit of hindsight, it is now clear why it was not in the best interests of the Ext team that the developers learn to use the library easily and on their own - or how else would they make support money? Also, lacking the budget for as big a testing/development team as the open source comuunity, it was in the ext owner&#039;s best interests to keep the real nature of their motives hidden until they had a commercially viable product ready. 

This licensing fiasco is really the last straw. As of now, I have thrown out the ext-js library from my project.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was using ext for one of my projects and was updating some stuff when I came across the ext licensing brouhaha all over the internet. I must say the licensing terms appeared sneaky from the beginning when I started using the library, but since what I wanted to use it for appeared to be LGPL licensed, I decided to go along with it. One of the major reasons I decided to use it was that ext appeared to do some pretty amazing stuff and with a really nice interface. BIG MISTAKE. The library was horrendously hard to learn and to use and debug, not in the least because:<br />
a) For a lot of the stuff in the API (which appeared to be well documented but was really not because a lot of it was just repitition of not very helpful comments) there was no contextutal information which can quickly tell a developer how to use the api (to get an idea regarding what I&#8217;m talking about, see jQuery API). Even YUI docs are better than ext.<br />
b) Second, but more importantly, noobs were treated like crap in the forums.<br />
With the benifit of hindsight, it is now clear why it was not in the best interests of the Ext team that the developers learn to use the library easily and on their own &#8211; or how else would they make support money? Also, lacking the budget for as big a testing/development team as the open source comuunity, it was in the ext owner&#8217;s best interests to keep the real nature of their motives hidden until they had a commercially viable product ready. </p>
<p>This licensing fiasco is really the last straw. As of now, I have thrown out the ext-js library from my project.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
