Forum OpenACS Q&A: Response to Article on ACS x Zope
"""Reading through the pieces you describe - which correspond pretty much to my understanding (your claims that I've not looked at Zope are incorrect)"""
You contradict an earlier post in this thread in which you say "My impression is that the Zope framework was designed and implemented before a great deal in the way of modules were hung on it... <snip>... Both of these observations are based on comments by users, I've never used it myself." Which is it? Have you used it or not?
"""So ... exactly what's so tough about writing a large website that justifies Zope's complexity and resulting steep learning curve?"""
I think the complexity issue is a red herring. We need to document the model to shorten the learning curve, this is not necessarily a flaw in design nor does it indicate overcomplexity.
"""If I invest the time to overcome that steep learning curve, what benefits will I see"""
You personally? None at all. I like you right where you are. Seriously, though, I have no desire to evangelize Zope here, it's next to pointless (you have your own application server) and it's starting to become time-consuming. I will be happy to answer or address specific technical questions or points raised about it (ala Ben's post) as opposed to participating in your current chest-beating session. I can offer no further arguments for Zope here than the availability of the product, its documentation, articles about it I've linked to, and its source code. If you're that interested in objectivity, do some work, I won't do it for you.
"""Did I really see the initials "UML" up there? I've contracted for Rational off-and-on..."""
I don't particularly like UML-style models that also serve as conclusive documentation. It's way too much work for the average person to ingest. This is an example of the kind of thing we need to fix.