On 26 Aug 2006, at 09:19, David Sanchez wrote:
Looking into J2EE, Cayenne/Tapestry can compete with WO?
No. Integration in a framework and the quality of its tools count
for a lot (and are usually undercredited).
Ruby on Rails can create client/server apps that do not use a
browser, like WO?
Rails can be used to create any server technology that depends on
transactional services - like SOAP, XML, HTML, etc. However, it is
extremely rigid in terms of how it does this, and to create, for
example, a Rails client, would involve working against the principle
of defaults that Rails uses. Rails of often described as an
opinionated framework, and you don't want to argue with it.
Basically, for simple project (they don't have to be small), Rails
has most of the advantages of WO. For more substantial projects,
there is still, and probably always will be, a considerable gap. The
challenge for WO is to see how significant the gap is between
"simple", and "substantiial".
Open source could be nice, but it is not faster than an enterprise
(with money) to develop and back up a project.
Spare time from programmers in the world cannot beat an army of
developers.
What army? There are faults with the OSS model, but time to market
isn't a significant one - as strong OSS projects often consist of
multiple small core teams - which usually move faster than one big army.
And, WO for Objective-C wouldn't be better for WO. It would be
faster, well integrated with Core Data and with mature XCode tools?
Surely that is "would be"? Most of us agree, but we aren't having
that discussion this week.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [email protected]
