Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
- Subject: Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
- From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:12:38 -0700
On 2011-09-28, at 9:38 AM, email@hidden wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> I can feel your gears turning. That's a good thing!
>
> 1) PHP is nothing but a template file (with embedded programming)
>
> 2) WO has a template file, a programming file, and it also has "in-line" binding which I've never been a fan of. Then there is the OGNL too...
I'm not a fan of inline either, but I can see the attraction.
> 3) Seaside is nothing but programming logic.
>
> So PHP is on one side and Seaside is on the other. WO is in the middle.
>
> We all can agree that the PHP, JSP, etc. way is a nightmare. You can make good software but you have to work harder.
>
> WO way is better. For many years I really liked the way the .html / .wod was nothing but presentation and bindings. OGNL is cool for quick and dirty but it didn't feel right to me being too cluttered like the PHP way and hard to debug. Inline bindings also clutter the HTML file and never resonated with me either. Maybe... perhaps its cool for a WOString with a single value but anything other than that... I'd rather someone use the .wod file. The Apple way was insane, you had to do all inline bindings or none. The WOnder way is best, able to mix the two.
>
> In WO there is the minor hassle of finding the line in HTML that matches up with the .wod file. Using WOlips this is easy because it finds it for you and jumps you right there to synchronize the two files in a split view. One thing WOLips can't do is refactor that code. Only Java code is refactorable. You also have to be extremely astute that you output correct and balanced HTML
Well, WOLips does markup incorrectly nested HTML. So if you don't ignore that (and don't do crazy stuff like tags split across components), it is not too hard to at least ensure balanced HTML.
> Seaside way is best. By using a living language, everything is immediate, you don't feel the urge to cheat like with OGNL. By removing the template file entirely and using objects you get so many benefits.
>
> 1) No extra files to coordinate.
>
> 2) no HTML syntax problems.
>
> 3) you can refactor ALL of your code, not just the business logic.
>
> 4) you can still partition your presentation logic - but instead of putting it in a different file you put it in a method.
>
> 5) did I mention everything is alive? There isn't even a source code file to deal with. No compiling, no interpreting static files, no need for an add-on like JavaRebel. In Eclipse you can query for methods given part of a name you remember. In Smalltalk you can query for methods that take such and such parameters and evoke a certain value, you don't even have to know the method name. Smalltalk will immediately give you a handful of methods that do "greatest common denominator" for example. "Living" versus "Living Dead" there is a difference but I digress.
That was always one of the attractions of the environment for me. It is such a different way of looking at it.
> Here is an example of how presentation is rendered in Seaside. Bare in mind that "renderContentOn" is akin to "appendToResponse". And that "html" is an object which gets passed into the method that is a bit like a WOContext and a String buffer rolled into one. In this example it is going to render an HTML table with table rows and table data cells:
>
> renderContentOn: html
>
> html table: [
> html
> tableRow: [
> html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']];
> tableRow: [
> html tableData: [html text: 'Table entry']]].
>
> Look foreign? Perhaps but it's worth getting your feet wet and kicking these ideas around. I've seen many things and this is the first set of tools and processes that make me feel good. Like it is equivalent and perhaps better than WO. It's brain dead easy to install and there are a number of tutorials out there.
OK, I see what you are talking about now. I am not sure if that is a win for me. I have this designer that I often work with and he is able to take an Eclipse project and edit the .HTML files to make design changes. He does not touch the WOD or the Java. This has been working pretty well for us. Switching to Seaside would mean that we would have to take the initial designs, convert them into code, and have the developers maintain them through the inevitable changes. I'd have to see how much time the rest of it would save me.
Chuck
> From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
> To: email@hidden
> Cc: WebObjects Mailing List <email@hidden>
> Date: 09/27/2011 06:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Finding WO people for startups (cult of the dead)
>
>
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
>
> On 2011-09-27, at 9:19 AM, email@hidden wrote:
>
> > What is cool about Smalltalk / Seaside with respect to WO?
> >
> > 5) Even better than "in-line" binding it has no template file what-so-ever by design. All your HTML output is coded in the programming language. No more unbalanced DIV tags. Everything is refactorable.
>
> Is that better? In my imagination that makes it like PHP. Would that not obstruct what little view of page structure that is still there in WO?
>
>
>
> --
> Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
>
> Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems.
> http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
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