> > GUI builders usually don't work for anything but the
> > most trivial websites that could be written in anything
> > and do fine.
>
> consider struts, a popular java mvc framework. it defines
> simple interfaces for things like actions and forms. does
> struts (and mvc in general) work for non
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Daniel Aldham wrote:
> Slashdot and Freshmeat ran a story on the weekend about
> the Borland/Kylix license. Pretty draconian stuff.
that's where i heard of it.
Hi all,
brian moseley wrote:
>
> have you folks seen kylix?
> http://www.borland.com/kylix/
And have you seen KDevelop ? http://www.kdevelop.org
and also
http://dot.kde.org/992083107/
http://dot.kde.org/986594487/
So there is already a basic Perl support in KDevelop 3 (codename
Gideon)...
>
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, brian moseley wrote:
>
> Kylix is, as I understand it, something much closer to original Delphi aim
> of programming without coding. I'm not saying it wouldn't be neat if you
> could do Kylix for Perl. I'm just saying I don't think it would be a
> fantastic success. S
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
> OK, I learned mod_perl, now where are my hot chicks! :)
no, no, you have to pledge the frat!
> I think a UI tool would help a bit, but it wouldn't
> necessarily solve the hard part of mod_perl which is the
> lack of Interpreter cleanup between inv
At 06:16 AM 1/14/2002, brian moseley wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> >
> > > Well, does this product actually have any users to compete for? GUI
> > > builders usually don't work for anything but the most trivial websites
> > > tha
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, brian moseley wrote:
> altho kylix was discussed in the first post of the thread,
> my actual reply to you stood on its own as a condemnation of
> a general cliquish attitude.
Oh, consider me properly chastened then. BTW - kylix is actually the
subject of this thread, suppo
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Sam Tregar wrote:
> Ah, gimme a break. You want to convince me that
> non-programmers can find their way to the party with a
> fancy GUI? Go right ahead! I'll let you wear the
> moose-hat for a whole week if you succeed. However,
> that doesn't mean I'm going to stay quie
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, brian moseley wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Sam Tregar wrote:
> >
> > Agree.
>
> you know, i think it's this attitude, or a more insidious
> version of it, that keeps mod_perl from being as ubiquitous
> as php. it's like having to pledge the frat before you can
> get the hot
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> > Well, does this product actually have any users to compete for? GUI
> > builders usually don't work for anything but the most trivial websites
> > that could be written in anything and do fine. People seem
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Well, does this product actually have any users to compete for? GUI
> builders usually don't work for anything but the most trivial websites
> that could be written in anything and do fine. People seem to come to
> mod_perl because they need more per
-- brian moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> many of us on this list have well-developed preferences for
> editing and debugging our code, configuring and testing our
> applications that are based on executing shell commands in a
> terminal. don't you think there are lots of well developed
> advocacy
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Well, does this product actually have any users to
> compete for?
unknown. i figure a large established software company isn't
going to spend time developing a product for a market that
doesn't exist, but you never know.
> GUI builders usually don't
> competition with this product (which has some really
> freaking license clauses which you can read about on
> freshmeat) seems pretty easy:
[...]
> anybody interested?
Well, does this product actually have any users to compete for? GUI
builders usually don't work for anything but the most triv
14 matches
Mail list logo