BTW, I think I went OT. Sorry before I am scolded.
On Jan 9, 4:55 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" <phil.swen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> great thoughts Casper. If the language itself is extensible (or at
> least "appears to be extensible") without changing the runtime, that's
> very very powerful
>
> I personally like writing code that solves business problems instead
> of choosing/building frameworks, wiring complex class hierarchies
> together, etc. That's why I am a big fan of RoR. My architecture is
> pretty much already done: I have a directory structure, a build
> system, an Ajax framework, a database migration system (which doesn't
> even exist in java world really), an ORM layer, and plugins for
> background jobs, deployment etc. If I don't like some of the choices
> I can easily override (like datamapper instead of active record,
> jquery instead of prototype, etc)
>
> In other words I don't like re-inventing the wheel :)
>
> Of course there are things I really hate about RoR (like it's
> dependence on native code )
>
> On Jan 9, 9:29 am, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, you can never satisfy everyone which is what sparks these
> > debates. They are two distinct community mentalities at heart, the
> > Swizz army knife of .NET complete with manual vs. the tool shed of
> > Java complete with a hammer factory in the corner. I see benefits of
> > both, no doubt the Java community is associated with more skill for
> > this reason, you NEED to know about specific GOF patterns to solve
> > your daily problems. And while the C# language obviously is more
> > complex, it's not as bad as many Java developers make it out to be.
> > For instance, many still think of LINQ as a language feature rather
> > than an API even though it's first and foremost an extensible API
> > using extension methods, anonymous types, properties and lambda
> > expressions - much of which ironically on the table for Java 7.
> > Another case of point, the DLR is just a library, no need to tinker
> > with new byte codes etc. as we see with JSR-292.
>
> > /Casper
>
> > On Jan 9, 4:28 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" <phil.swen...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in
> > > features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a
> > > casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming.
>
> > > On Jan 9, 5:35 am, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 9, 1:02 pm, John Wright <fortyrun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I second this - keeping up with the pace of change of C# and .NET 2.0,
> > > > > 3.0, 3..5 etc is a fulltime job!
>
> > > > And in Java its a full time job to keep up with all the libraries and
> > > > frameworks, largely because the out-of-the-box experience is so lousy
> > > > and innovation HAS to take place in external libraries. So I guess I
> > > > find that argument rather weak, although I understand the HR concerns.
> > > > Example: A C# assembly has encapsulated the versioning aspect from day
> > > > one, something that's handled in a myriad of ways in Java, either by
> > > > OSGi, NetBeans Module System, JSR-277, Jigsaw... + a very long list of
> > > > classloader hacks.
>
> > > > /Casper
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
