Be nice to your fellow bloggers

Afternoon linkslutage for y’all:


has a new thing she’s hyping, and I think it’s a pretty good idea. But, as Johnathan says, why do we have to actually state this? I wish it was just understood. Be nice, be happy, Help out your fellow blogger.

This is a community. While it is slightly odd and disfunctional at times, it is a community never the less. Respect your peers. And have another beer.

  1. SubastAqui says:

    I actually hapepn to use both Rails and WebWork and I'm sorry for some of you guys but WW is clearly inferior to Rails in every aspect for a bunch of reasons:1. Language DOES matter. Try to rebuild Rails in Java and after a few minutes you'll forget about it. It's just impossible to make it as elegant as Rails for various reasons (the first that comes to mind are the lack of mix-ins and blocks). In Rails I can use plain Ruby for every letter in MVC. With WW, I have at least to juggle between Java, JSP tags, OGNL and Velocity because Java is just not suited for all the jobs because of its verbosity. Not to mention various XML DTDs required for the configuration of various components. Great tools like IDEA may indeed help generate code but they won't help you when it comes to read and maintain it : the only 100% guaranteed bug-free code is the one you don't have to write.2. Configuration. Although XW/WW configuration is very lightweight if you compare it to Struts, I still do repeat myself when I'm mapping the action addToCart to the class AddToCartAction. Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.3. Documentation. Rails is not even 1.0 and it's way more carefully documented than WW. It looks like writing less code gives more time to document it. Rails' code base is also much tighter and thus very easy to dive into.4. Full-Stack Framework. How many Java frameworks, microlanguages and XML dialects should I learn if I want develop an MVC web app, with ORM, with some sort of advanced way to organize and componentize views, a good testing infrastructure, multiple running environment support, RoR comes with all that and so much more like some very nice View helpers.5. Views. Please admit it, you hardcore Java guys just hate them. You probably think HTML is a toy markup language for pinky commie graphic designers and doesn't deserve any respect. That' why the View tier of every single Java framework I've been using so far just badly sucked. Framework architect tend to always keep a safety distance with the View layer and thus just quickly write some wrapper for Velocity or a bunch of JSP tags and that's about it. No wonder communicating between the model and the view is always a pain in the ass in one way or another (be it having the objects in the right scope or accessing the properties using some twisted microlanguage). All this makes Views barely readable and maintainable. RoR uses embedded Ruby, you benefit from all the power of a real language at your fingertips and a direct access to instance properties and even helper objects with no learning curve.Although I think RoR is superior to all Java web framework I used so far, I really respect the WW guys for building this framework which is one of the coolest in Javaland (unfortunately still ruled by crapware like Struts) but there is absolutely NO WAY any Java framework can compete with RoR just try to build some real life app with it to figure out yourself how much precious time you've been wasting until now.Time to shutdown IDEA and launch TextMate, 2005 will definetly be the year of Ruby on Rails!

Post a comment

Name or OpenID (required)

(lesstile enabled - surround code blocks with ---)