• 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: State of WebObjects
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: State of WebObjects


  • Subject: Re: State of WebObjects
  • From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:21:25 -0400

<unsubstantiated-theory-mode>
I think there's something about interpreted languages that makes a psychological difference for "non-programmers". Perl, PHP, Ruby, Javascript all attract many of the same types of people (not that Ruby doesn't attract programmer types as well, but those languages all tend to attract "non-programmers" more than, say, Java), and I think there's something to be said for not having a compile stage. There's a certain freedom that it presents for people who tend to be more unstructured (i.e. designers) in their approach to solving programming problems. Additionally, I believe weak typing plays a role in a similar way. I'm personally a fan of strong typing, but I can see the weak-typing, interpreted allure for someone who is starting out in development by "messing around" or just tweaking a program they got from somewhere else. There is a certain intellectual overhead in compiling and typing that I can see being a turnoff for that approach to developing.


So while I do agree that conceptually they're both doing very similar things, I think those additional attributes DO make a difference.

And of course it's just hot and WO is for curmudgeons like all of us :)
</unsubstantiated-theory-mode>

ms

I still don't see this. A Rails scaffolding app is analogous to a WO Wizard or D2W app; they both have the same advantages and disadvantages, and take roughly the same amount of time to set up. If you don't see people using WO to do this, it doesn't mean that it can't be done - it just means that Rails is the latest flavour of the month, evangelical product.

As for the concepts, there are just as many. You still need to learn the frameworks, and Rails has a lot of things that aren't intuitively obvious (just the same as WO, only different); the naming conventions, for one thing. The only real difference I see is that WO is fanatical about MVC (in comparison to Rails), and Rails likes to blur the edges. This could be a really important difference, and quite possibly the only significant one.

Paul
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40mdimension.com


This email sent to email@hidden

_______________________________________________ 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: State of WebObjects
      • From: Timmy <email@hidden>
References: 
 >State of WebObjects (From: Scott Henderson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: State of WebObjects (From: David LeBer <email@hidden>)
 >Re: State of WebObjects (From: Miguel Arroz <email@hidden>)
 >Re: State of WebObjects (From: Paul Lynch <email@hidden>)
 >Re: State of WebObjects (From: Miguel Arroz <email@hidden>)
 >Re: State of WebObjects (From: Paul Lynch <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: State of WebObjects
  • Next by Date: Re: State of WebObjects
  • Previous by thread: Re: State of WebObjects
  • Next by thread: Re: State of WebObjects
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread