* Neil Schemenauer wrote [2006-03-06 14:30:27 -0700]:
> I guess either people are happy or they left for other frameworks.

Happy, but spending more time of late with Quixote cousin QP.

> It seems to me that Quixote is losing a marketing war with other
> frameworks.  That's a shame because I think Quixote does a lot of
> things well.

There is something to be said for marketing. Not sure what, but
something ;-)

> At this point the only major changes I would make would be to make
> it more modular and more library like.  Ideally, QP could be built
> using components from Quixote.  The restructuring would probably
> consist of backwards incompatible changes and I'm not sure the
> community is up for that.

That's an interesting thought whether it goes anywhere or not.

What I like about QP is that it makes some decisions; I'd always loved big
chunks of Dulcinea and some of those made it to QP (site management).  I
don't mind QP being *nix specific and Durus dependent.

QP as a superset of Qx, on the surface sounds like a nice idea but is there
any support for doing the actual work and suffering the migration pain?