Nice troll.
1) Yes <%=%> was 10 times as fast. But Anything of simple complexity like using a model object request <%=%> to get ugly real fast with many getters and explict casts. There is a massive tradeoff in simplicity when you have the following:
${myObect.myGetter.aValue}
2) I get massive headaches reading all the extra <%%> in code. Add any type of loops of block and it gets even worse. JSTL is simpler to read if you have good people writing consitent styles.
3) XML is for what you want it to be. But as for using xml as the syntax for JSTL, it does make things simpler for other tool sets to integrate. It also is an easier trasitition from things like cold fusion and such.
4) This arguement is the blanket arguement against any loose typed languages. I shall ignore it.
5) This sounds like people having configuration and training issue.
6) All my developers have switched to JSTL. They love it and the code is much easier to write and *more important* review.
7) This is just plain old trolling.
-Tim
Ivan Jouikov wrote:
After getting convinced to try JSTL, I learned the following things:
1. JSTL and EL are inefficient. Tests on similar pages clearly showed that. (compare - ${name} with <%=name%>, run in a loop 10000 times, youâll see the difference)
2. JSTL is cumbersome â someone told me once that the reason they use JSTL is because their designers are scared of <%=%> code, but they have no problem throwing around XML statements. Well, whatâs my advice to him: hire new designers, and fire your high school students. On one hand, yeah ${parameter.name} is very nice relatively to <%=request.getParameter(ânameâ)%>. But after playing around with JSTLs uâll see what I mean. Also, when your designers screwes up with the logical structure of your web-site cuz he thought he could just âthrow aroundâ tags, youâll think twice. Which brings me to the next pointâ
3. XML is for data flow, not for logic. Whoever the hell thought of tags like <c:if> and <c:choose> should be murdered in the worst way possible. With JSTLâs exporting and importing variables, and all the logical statements and loops, the whole idea of XML gets destroyed.
4. EL encourages sloppy syntax. It doesnât even have data types (well it has on the bottom level, but not on the surface). Remember JavaScript? Did you know that at first, it was supposed to be server-side scripting language? You know the reason it didnât make it (one of the major ones)? Because of its sloppy syntax and the amount of errors it caused. Why bring it back?
5. Server-side content and client-side content should be separated. When everything looks like HTML (in some way), itâs hard to tell what actually gets processed, and what gets sent to the client as static (if you have all-nighters, youâll understand).
6. JSTL is time-consuming. The whole idea of JSTL was to speed up the process. Not only is it less efficient than embedding code the normal way, but it also takes you forever to make something new with it. Donât believe me? Just try it.
7. The only reason JSTL was made is so that guys at Apache could write some stupid book explaining its hella complicated syntax, and charge people $50 for it. See, itâs just like the C++ story. Why was C++ invented? To give programmers jobs. No other reason whatsoever, C does whatever C++ does just as good, and better. So I am not sure if JSTL is a step to having âadvancedâ developers who get paid more because they took time to learn retarded JSTL syntax and EL, or is it just Apacheâs developersâ way of making money (and I am surre Oâreilly and the bros are thankful too).
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
