Over the course of the weekend a number of people asked me about Scala and
wasn’t time for a lightening talk so here are some of the resources and topics
to help see why scala and where it fits.
The reasons I use Scala is that it helps me think more clearly (reason more
simply) about programmin
That would explain why by Sun some of us had hoarse voices...and coughed and
chocked the way through a presentation ;)
lol
On 14/11/2010, at 3:54 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
> Le 2010-11-13 à 10:24, Joe Little a écrit :
>
>> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
>>> You obvious
Le 2010-11-13 à 10:24, Joe Little a écrit :
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
>> You obviously have not seen us at WOWODC ;-)
>
> Before or after the night of drinking?
Night or nights? I think some people have spent more on St-Denis than
at the conference ;-)
>>
>> Reg
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
> You obviously have not seen us at WOWODC ;-)
Before or after the night of drinking?
>
> Regards, Kieran.
>
>
> On Nov 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Mark Wardle wrote:
>
I've heard rumors of WO developers using pink netbooks! (^_~)
>>>
>>
>>
You obviously have not seen us at WOWODC ;-)
Regards, Kieran.
On Nov 13, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Mark Wardle wrote:
>>> I've heard rumors of WO developers using pink netbooks! (^_~)
>>
>
> The Apple rules were written to avoid such horrors.
>
> You all appear to have missed the clauses covering s
>> I've heard rumors of WO developers using pink netbooks! (^_~)
>
The Apple rules were written to avoid such horrors.
You all appear to have missed the clauses covering stylish hair,
personal jets and a playboy lifestyle that are essential parts of the
Apple developer contract. (*)
Mark
(*) Th
Le 2010-11-12 à 15:05, Chuck Hill a écrit :
> On Nov 11, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>> Le 2010-11-11 à 19:12, Chuck Hill a écrit :
>>> On Nov 11, 2010, at 4:05 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>>>
I have a question that I kept to myself for months, but let's go public.
People talk
On Nov 11, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
> Le 2010-11-11 à 19:12, Chuck Hill a écrit :
>> On Nov 11, 2010, at 4:05 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>>
>>> I have a question that I kept to myself for months, but let's go public.
>>> People talks about moving away from WO or even writing WO/EOF re
Don't forget that tools don't work as well if you're not on a Mac. Rule editor
is non-existent.
-Mike
On Nov 12, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
> Le 2010-11-12 à 13:58, David LeBer a écrit :
>
>>
>> On 2010-11-12, at 1:33 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:50 AM,
On Nov 12, 2010, at 1:58 PM, David LeBer wrote:
On 2010-11-12, at 1:33 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:50 AM, Hugi Thordarson wrote:
I honestly don't see what Apple gains by forbidding me and my
coworkers to use WO.
The question at this point is what would they gain by allo
Le 2010-11-12 à 13:58, David LeBer a écrit :
>
> On 2010-11-12, at 1:33 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
>
>> On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:50 AM, Hugi Thordarson wrote:
>>>
>>> I honestly don't see what Apple gains by forbidding me and my coworkers to
>>> use WO.
>>
>> The question at this point is what would
On 2010-11-12, at 1:33 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:50 AM, Hugi Thordarson wrote:
>>
>> I honestly don't see what Apple gains by forbidding me and my coworkers to
>> use WO.
>
> The question at this point is what would they gain by allowing it?
Does Apple really care? Yes I
On 2010-11-12, at 10:39 AM, Hugi Thordarson wrote:
>>> I honestly don't see what Apple gains by forbidding me and my coworkers to
>>> use WO.
>>
>> The question at this point is what would they gain by allowing it?
>
> ME!
I'll write Steve on behalf of the world.
:-)
>
> ;)
>
> - hugi ___
>> I honestly don't see what Apple gains by forbidding me and my coworkers to
>> use WO.
>
> The question at this point is what would they gain by allowing it?
ME!
;)
- hugi ___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects
On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:50 AM, Hugi Thordarson wrote:
>
> I honestly don't see what Apple gains by forbidding me and my coworkers to
> use WO.
The question at this point is what would they gain by allowing it?
--
Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
Practical WebObjects -
Le 2010-11-12 à 11:23, Antonio Petri a écrit :
> Yes, we were all waiting for the unifying framework, the "write once, compile
> everywhere" solution to the
> cross platform development. BedRock died because Apple dropped it to work on
> OpenDoc. Even MacApp
> was slowly being ported to window,
Hi!
On 2010/11/12, at 16:16, Pascal Robert wrote:
> THINK Pascal all the way! And not because of the name...
>
> WaitNextEvent(WOWODC 2011)
MoreHandles(); MoreHandles(); MoreHandles();
Regards,
Miguel Arroz
___
Do not post admin requests to the l
Yes, we were all waiting for the unifying framework, the "write once,
compile everywhere" solution to the
cross platform development. BedRock died because Apple dropped it to work on
OpenDoc. Even MacApp
was slowly being ported to window, until it was completely axed because, I
think, Cocoa was com
+1
I followed the croud and moved to C++ at that time, but still I don't see
the reason... Object Pascal was so good,
Borland themselves adopted the Object Pascal model, diverting from their
Turbo Pascal, for Delphi.
No doubt Delphi is still well alive.
On 12 November 2010 16:16, Pascal Robert w
Le 2010-11-12 à 11:10, Miguel Arroz a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> For those of you scratching their heads...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedrock_(framework)
>
> I didn't know that one! :) But Think C was nice, and CodeWarrior was
> awesome! :) I still have both at home, some of my graduation pro
Hi!
For those of you scratching their heads...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedrock_(framework)
I didn't know that one! :) But Think C was nice, and CodeWarrior was awesome!
:) I still have both at home, some of my graduation projects were made using
CodeWarrior. Then, OS X showed up. :)
OpenDoc? that killed BedRock!
I waited ages for BedRock to arrive :(
I still have the pre-release CD...
On 12 November 2010 15:15, Pascal Robert wrote:
> That's why I said "in the last 10 years" :-) And it was stuff coming out
> from research, not stuff used by Apple like WO is. I'm still waitin
That's why I said "in the last 10 years" :-) And it was stuff coming out from
research, not stuff used by Apple like WO is. I'm still waiting for OpenDoc
comeback.
> Hi everyone,
>
> Your vision is too narrow. Apple _does_ give / sell their technologies to
> other people and it has happened r
Hi everyone,
Your vision is too narrow. Apple _does_ give / sell their technologies to
other people and it has happened recently.
Squeak (Smalltalk) is a good example. Giving it to Walt Disney and also
the world at large:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeak
Dylan is another example. Giving it
>> The question is more that I don't understand why people wants to rewrite WO
>> when you can simply extend it.
>
> I think the problem is obviously more "political" than technical. Technically
> you are correct in that WebObjects is extensible with or without PW.
Seconded. I'm currently worki
Hi Pascal;
The question is more that I don't understand why people wants to rewrite WO
when you can simply extend it.
I think the problem is obviously more "political" than technical.
Technically you are correct in that WebObjects is extensible with or
without PW.
cheers.
___
Andrew Lind
Well, all this talk about Roo still makes me unsure of what people
find the most compelling part of WO that they are starting to look at
other technologies for. Indeed, we are all a little skittish over
future directions and future releases with a perhaps non-growing
community. I still find Grails
Hi Pascal,
I agree with you. But there are a couple of problems that can't be solved by
means of extension. We have to make use of hacks as soon as reporting
bugs/suggestions of improvement to Apple is ineffective. It's very
disappointing.
Sent from my iPhone
On 11/11/2010, at 23:08, Pascal R
Le 2010-11-11 à 19:12, Chuck Hill a écrit :
> On Nov 11, 2010, at 4:05 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
>
>> I have a question that I kept to myself for months, but let's go public.
>> People talks about moving away from WO or even writing WO/EOF replacements.
>> But AFAIK, Wonder shows that we can
Le 2010-11-11 à 19:11, Chuck Hill a écrit :
> On Nov 11, 2010, at 3:26 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>>
>> Well, I didn't see any job postings on Apple site seeking Objective-C people
>> to rewrite WO in Objective-C. Like I said to the ReadWriteWeb guy, Apple
>> themselves needs a JVM for all their
On Nov 11, 2010, at 4:05 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
> I have a question that I kept to myself for months, but let's go public.
> People talks about moving away from WO or even writing WO/EOF replacements.
> But AFAIK, Wonder shows that we can extend the core frameworks a lot. Sure,
> extending W
On Nov 11, 2010, at 3:26 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
> Well, I didn't see any job postings on Apple site seeking Objective-C people
> to rewrite WO in Objective-C. Like I said to the ReadWriteWeb guy, Apple
> themselves needs a JVM for all their WO apps + a couple of J2EE ones (iTunes
> Connect
Potential new adopters of WO at the beginning are likely to be more
interested to know whether WO can fit their purpose than interested in
contributing to Wonder. The more adopt WO, the more likely some of them will
at some point contribute. So, whether Wonder is open or not is more of a
concern to
On 11.11.2010, at 15:19, Antonio Petri
wrote:
IMHO, Wonder process lacks communication. Usually Wonder decisions
(even dramatic ones) are made by one committer. There is no
planning, no discussion.
That looks pretty much Apple! ;)
The coincidence. And they do not do releases either.
We get the second part with 64bit Linux Servers and a whopping boatload of
memory ;-)
Regards, Kieran.
On Nov 11, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
> I think I would define multithreading to be something like multiple EOF
> stacks that don't blow out memory ... Ultimately that requires so
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
> >> Sure, extending WO so that EOF become multi-threaded or anything like
> this would be a huge task, but from my point of view (a non-technical one),
> we can do a lot on top of WO to "fix" problems. And to me, it make more
> sense to extend
> IMHO, Wonder process lacks communication. Usually Wonder decisions (even
> dramatic ones) are made by one committer. There is no planning, no
> discussion.
>
> That looks pretty much Apple! ;)
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ig
s can both inherit the statics from the trait,
>>>> like this:
>>>>
>>>> object base.EntityName extends EntityNameStatics
>>>>
>>>> object EntityName extends EntityNameStatics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>&g
Hi Pascal,
On 11/11/2010, at 10:34, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
> Le 2010-11-11 à 07:21, Anjo Krank a écrit :
>
>>> I have a question that I kept to myself for months, but let's go public.
>>> People talks about moving away from WO or even writing WO/EOF replacements.
>>> But AFAIK, Wonder shows t
Le 2010-11-11 à 07:21, Anjo Krank a écrit :
>> I have a question that I kept to myself for months, but let's go public.
>> People talks about moving away from WO or even writing WO/EOF replacements.
>> But AFAIK, Wonder shows that we can extend the core frameworks a lot.
>
> The core problem b
>> Sure, extending WO so that EOF become multi-threaded or anything like this
>> would be a huge task, but from my point of view (a non-technical one), we
>> can do a lot on top of WO to "fix" problems. And to me, it make more sense
>> to extend WO than trying to rewrite it...
> Depending on how
> I have a question that I kept to myself for months, but let's go public.
> People talks about moving away from WO or even writing WO/EOF replacements.
> But AFAIK, Wonder shows that we can extend the core frameworks a lot.
The core problem being that "we" means a very, very tiny amount of peop
Le 2010-11-11 à 06:45, Anjo Krank a écrit :
>>> To be clear: one of the selling points of Roo as no lock-in. You can use
>>> any number of JPA providers, you get code generated which you can customize
>>> pretty well via aspect-j (a part of which I would like to see in EO
>>> generator so one
>> To be clear: one of the selling points of Roo as no lock-in. You can use any
>> number of JPA providers, you get code generated which you can customize
>> pretty well via aspect-j (a part of which I would like to see in EO
>> generator so one remove the weird _Foo classes) and you get this wi
>> Anjo should change his surname to Anjo Frank.
>
> You should talk. At least I have one :P
>
> To be clear: one of the selling points of Roo as no lock-in. You can use any
> number of JPA providers, you get code generated which you can customize
> pretty well via aspect-j (a part of which I w
ds EntityNameStatics
>>>
>>> object EntityName extends EntityNameStatics
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10.11.2010, at 12:14, Ravi Mendis wrote:
>>>
>>>> The scala ide for Eclipse 3.5 is much improved. Yes, it still might be a
Le 2010-11-11 à 06:14, Farrukh Ijaz a écrit :
> On 2010-11-11, at 1:46 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 2010-11-11 à 04:15, Anjo Krank a écrit :
>>
>>> And the ORM can't cache relationships and doesn't have an EC? Great...
>>>
>>> I was the google developer day the other day and they pres
On 2010-11-11, at 1:46 PM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
> Le 2010-11-11 à 04:15, Anjo Krank a écrit :
>
>> And the ORM can't cache relationships and doesn't have an EC? Great...
>>
>> I was the google developer day the other day and they presented SpringRoo.
>> Most of the people there thought it w
ke this:
>>>>
>>>> object base.EntityName extends EntityNameStatics
>>>>
>>>> object EntityName extends EntityNameStatics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10.11.2010, at 12:14, Ravi Mendis wrote:
>>>>
>>
object Keys {
>>>>> // Attributes
>>>>> // Relationships
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the companion objects can both inherit the statics from the trait,
>>>>>
Relationships
>>>>}
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Now the companion objects can both inherit the statics from the trait,
>>>> like this:
>>>>
>>>> object base.EntityName extends EntityNameStatics
>>>>
Mendis wrote:
>>>
>>>> The scala ide for Eclipse 3.5 is much improved. Yes, it still might be a
>>>> little slow, but it's tolerable...if only to be able to use the wonderful
>>>> Scala tools and libraries that have started to emerge. E.g: Squer
;
>> On 10.11.2010, at 12:14, Ravi Mendis wrote:
>>
>>> The scala ide for Eclipse 3.5 is much improved. Yes, it still might be a
>>> little slow, but it's tolerable...if only to be able to use the wonderful
>>> Scala tools and libraries that have started to eme
ueryl,
>> ScalaTest, Specs, etc.
>>
>> You'll have to ask Pascal about the WOWODC 10 screencasts...
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 7:25 PM, Marius Soutier wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've been eagerly following your progress with Sca
54 matches
Mail list logo
