• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag
 

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06


  • Subject: Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
  • From: Paul Lynch <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:31:47 +0100


On 26 Aug 2006, at 09:19, David Sanchez wrote:

Looking into J2EE, Cayenne/Tapestry can compete with WO?

No. Integration in a framework and the quality of its tools count for a lot (and are usually undercredited).


Ruby on Rails can create client/server apps that do not use a browser, like WO?

Rails can be used to create any server technology that depends on transactional services - like SOAP, XML, HTML, etc. However, it is extremely rigid in terms of how it does this, and to create, for example, a Rails client, would involve working against the principle of defaults that Rails uses. Rails of often described as an opinionated framework, and you don't want to argue with it.


Basically, for simple project (they don't have to be small), Rails has most of the advantages of WO. For more substantial projects, there is still, and probably always will be, a considerable gap. The challenge for WO is to see how significant the gap is between "simple", and "substantiial".

Open source could be nice, but it is not faster than an enterprise (with money) to develop and back up a project.

Spare time from programmers in the world cannot beat an army of developers.

What army? There are faults with the OSS model, but time to market isn't a significant one - as strong OSS projects often consist of multiple small core teams - which usually move faster than one big army.


And, WO for Objective-C wouldn't be better for WO. It would be faster, well integrated with Core Data and with mature XCode tools?

Surely that is "would be"? Most of us agree, but we aren't having that discussion this week.


Paul
_______________________________________________
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


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
      • From: David Sanchez <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06 (From: David Sanchez <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06 (From: James Stead <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06 (From: David Sanchez <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: referencing Application classes from non-component classes
  • Next by Date: Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
  • Previous by thread: Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
  • Next by thread: Re: Looks like ThinkSecret got some of the scoop on WO from WWDC'06
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread