| In the meantime, while we wait for the apocalypse, whoever wants to keep making apps with Java and WebObjects is welcome to hang around.
ms On Sep 10, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Ken Foust wrote: From the outside looking in:
It appears to me as thought WO is on the end of life list. As good as it may be I don't suspect in can survive in the future. Apple has elected to leave web development to the open-source. I would suspect they only possible way Apple can compete in the Enterprise market is to make it proprietary and in ObjC. Short of that you have too many people working for free on Rails, Grails and all the open-source programs. There is no way to get enough new users to come aboard as WO now has poor documentation and terrible tutorials. Sorry if I offend anyone but it is what it is. For you gurus to understand it completely - leaves you in a world of your own, but selling the concept I believe is difficult and will even get more difficult. Hell I think Java is on the way out along with Sun and Oracle.
Apple has always had the proprietary followers and they could put off a brilliant app for web development should they choose. In addition their market share is now large enough to support the idea.
my two cents
On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:02 PM, André Mitra wrote: except Mathematica :) On 2010-09-10, at 9:26 AM, Amiel Montecillo wrote: Mike is scary somtimes .... ;) But I agree with him that there is no 1 tool that does everything.
Cheers, Amiel On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Mike Schrag <email@hidden> wrote:
Here's my slightly less grumpy response :)
Apple, like any smart company, makes technology decisions based on lots of variables -- what technology makes sense? what technology doesn't make sense? what is the expertise of our current staffing? what are the goals for the project? etc ... I love WO, but I'm also the first to admit that WO and EOF aren't the right fit for every problem. There are parts of WOF and EOF that drive me crazy, and there are parts that are amazing. I also don't think that being WO inherently makes you scalable any more than I think being a Rails app makes you inherently unscalable. It's just like the NoSQL vs Relational debate. Are relational databases dead? No. That's just silly. But do NoSQL databases have a place? Absolutely -- they bring value to a certain set of problems that relational doesn't address well. Likewise, Apple has public web properties that are static html, php, struts, jsf, jsp, sproutcore, webobjects, and I'm sure others and there are lots of different reasons in each of those cases why decisions were made one way or another. In any complex system, you're probably going to end up with a mix of technologies. As far as "details," you're just not going to get them because Apple doesn't roll that way.
ms
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:54 AM, Mertz Stéphan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The new 'the Sales and Trend reporting module' of iTunes Connect is develop with JSF instead of WebObjects.
> Does Apple stop to use WebObjects for its internal tools?
>
> Does someone know what is powering the new Ping social network ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Stéphan _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
--
socket error: unable to connect to 127.0.0.1
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
|