Re: WO 5.3...confusion
Re: WO 5.3...confusion
- Subject: Re: WO 5.3...confusion
- From: Tom Blenko <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:55:28 -0700
On Jun 11, 2005, at 7:54 AM, Doug McClure wrote:
On 6/8/05, Ricardo Parada <email@hidden> wrote:
As far as deployment, WO is a java-based library. And the source to
WebObjects adaptor for Apache is provided.
And Apple won't stop you from deploying on a non-Apple server.
While very true, one has take into consideration the history of WO.
Initially, WO was part of the grander EOF strategy available for
YellowBox / Openstep. Then Java was chosen in favor of ObjC. That
was the beginning of the end for ObjC WO. Writing client-server EOF
apps was dropped as a supported option. Then ObjC was dropped as a
supported option for WO. Development on Windows wasn't exactly
dropped, but nearly effectively EOLed. Now development or deployment
on anything other than OS X is no longer a supported option.
While I appreciate your frustration, I think you are overlooking two
major points.
First, the changes in WO over time didn't happen because, e.g., the
Obj-C programmers got tired of programming in Obj-C, they happened
because Apple was responding to its market. The market said they had to
deliver on customers' platforms, they delivered cross-platform. The
market said Java, they delivered Java (both short-term and long-term).
The market is currently telling them that WO loses them money, I
strongly suspect, and they've found a way to (try to) keep it alive by
retargeting the product. How does the cost to your employer of buying a
couple Apple servers compare to the cost of keeping you working as a
developer for a year? Or the money saved by writing and maintaining an
app in WO rather than with JSP's? Why shouldn't Apple expect for WO to
contribute to their bottom line (or get abandoned) and why shouldn't
they expect your employer, who is deriving benefit, to help pay for
that? I think they've been slow getting around to this but, hey, anyone
offered the job of business unit manager for WO would be wise to run
for the hills (especially if they were accustomed to running businesses
:-).
I think Apple may have missed the opportunity to give WO a life of its
own, and a bigger role in the tech world, by not spinning it off early
in the Internet era. That's now history. WO has never been what Apple's
business is about (although NeXT may have been headed that way) and I
don't think that's going to change.
Second, and this is the elephant that I always see getting lost among
the complaints, where do you suppose there is certainty in the tech
world? How many new technologies have been floated in the short time
Java has been in vogue? How many were well-conceived, how many were
well-executed, and where are the overwhelming majority today? Everyone
likes to point to successful open-source projects but what are the odds
of an open-source project ever reaching the point of being useful? Very
long indeed, I suspect, you don't want to be in the business of picking
the winners. You are right to ask for foresight but you can't expect a
lot.
In the environment we live in, WO has been an unusually well-conceived,
well-executed, long-lived proposition from an engineering point of
view. The story hasn't been as good from a business point of view. I'm
glad Apple is making an effort to address that.
Tom
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden