>
> > I'm with you on this point and I'm wondering if part of that may be
> > due to the way Tapestry is perceived in the broader community. I
> consider
> > myself a pretty damn experienced servlet developer, and Tapestry
> definitely
> > wasn't easy to get ahold of.
>
> I think that says it all. Personally I could never feel comfortable with
> servlets (and I've never done much with them or webapps). Coming without
> this baggage to Tapestry I found it very easy to pick up and I built an
> entire website with it in two weeks.
>
>
<<Snip>
> The very nature of a "black box" is that you don't worry about it! It's
> the main reason Tapestry worked for me - I didn't have to think about
> any of the underlying boring stuff and could concentrate on building the
> site itself.
We're veering into OT land here so I'll try to resist my natural
inclination to write a lot :). I think you're probably right in that it may
be a cultural divide of sorts. I'm not sure if it's an old/young programmer
divide, or if it's just that I'm a bit of a fuddy/duddy as I'm actually not
*that* old a programmer, although I can remember when the idea of writing
your own memory manager didn't strike anyone as an unusual thing to do in a
commercial product (how else are you supposed to enforce locality of
reference and make sure your shared memory doesn't get all fragmented and
nasty? Surely you don't trust malloc! What next, a commercial product to
store and retrieve structured data from DASD? You dreamer you!).
So, maybe I'm old, or maybe I'm just weird, but black boxes still
make me nervous and I need to get comfortable with them before I start using
them extensively.
--- Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
