Nathan Andelin wrote:
EGL is not limited to web development.
Which begs the question, which list do you think it should be on?
Language comparisons in general belong here. Trying to determine the
best tool for the job is the primary mandate of this list.
Now, if you can make a case that a specific comparison is web-related,
you might want to say it should go on WEB400-L. If that decision is
made, then all discussions of web-related topics should go there - that
there. As should web security.
But if you decide to segregate that strongly, then I have a further
suggestion. All commercial product discussion should be on a new
VENDORS-L list. If a question is asked that deserves a vendor response,
the vendor should respond with a brief comment including a URL to their
website and a redirect to the VENDORS-L list. This new list would
allows vendors to pitch their products without having to constantly put
in caveats, while at the same time it makes it crystal clear to readers
that posts may be from vendors.
And no, I don't consider IBM as a "vendor" in this sense. Any
discussions of products licensed by IBM can remain on the Midrange-L
list, barring their categorization in other lists. If David wants
strict adherence to the web application issue, then EGL RUI, for
example, would belong specifically in the WEB400 list as would Zend PHP
(Zend is a strange case, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt).
RDi belongs on Midrange-L. RBD is a tougher case: JSF tooling
discussions go to WEB400, but EGL for batch should remain in Midrange-L.
That's of course just my opinion, and it don't mean a hill of beans -
this is clearly David's call, not ours.