Re: decoupling EOF
Re: decoupling EOF
- Subject: Re: decoupling EOF
- From: Art Isbell <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:01:13 -1000
On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:30 PM, PA wrote:
On Mar 04, 2005, at 23:23, Art Isbell wrote:
Not for those of us who came from an Objective-C background.
Get over it :P
Nothing for me to get over. As I said, I'm happy using the
Objective-C API's in Java.
Moving to Java with WO 5 was a PITA, so we're happy that the API's
for most classes remained unchanged.
I have found the Java API's to be inelegant compared to those
designed by NeXT, so I'm not unhappy avoiding native Java classes.
Stick with Objective-C then:
No need for WO (see above). I can still get my Objective-C fix
building Cocoa desktop apps.
Being forced to use the Java date quagmire is more than enough for me
:-)
The choice is yours:
http://joda-time.sourceforge.net/
Thanks!
I understand why those coming from a Java background would be
unhappy. I'm just offering a different perspective.
Sounds like apologies :P
Why should I apologize? I think Apple made the right decision.
I was unhappy moving from Objective-C to Java, but I made the
necessary adjustments to continue using WO without continuing to whine
about the loss of Objective-C in WO. So those who are unhappy using
the Foundation classes can do the same while lobbying Apple to use
native Java classes wherever possible (i.e., file an enhancement
request rather than whining in this forum which accomplishes nothing).
But all in all, you are right: if you don't have any legacy system to
deal with, don't bother with WebObjects in the first place.
Maybe one day in the future you won't have legacy systems to deal with
so you can free yourself of the WO burden :-) Or do you enjoy
kibitzing in this forum just too much to give it up? :-)
Aloha,
Art
_______________________________________________
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