> In one aspect it is a part of learning a library, on the other hand it fits > in with what I'm wondering: why the basic assumptions of building a web site > keep getting thrown out of the window with every new Java web framework. I > realize that people like the Swing framework for application building; I do > to, it's quite fun to work with. But this isn't desktop application > development, this is web application development. I've yet to see a website > built to act like a desktop application that wasn't slow, buggy, broken in > many browsers, convoluted and hard to use or any combination of these.
Blame the millions of users who disagree with you, and who use those buggy broken web apps daily. Also, note that it's about programming just as much. I don't know how happy you were using plain JSP or model 2 frameworks like Struts etc, but I encountered *serious* problems for building anything other than the most trivial app. No reuse, not much options for partitioning work amongst developers (and designers), hacks and code duplication all over the place. Wicket is trying to solve such issues, and in my - biased - experience it does a better job at that than I even expected in the first place. For the first time since I've been developing web apps the prospect of refactoring doesn't panic the entire team. > This is one of the reasons that Rails is so successful. Oh, common'. Rails is mostly successful by PHP converts etc. I have heard quite a few stories of people who 'came back' to Java after a one-time experiment. I'm using Ruby regularly for sysadmin/ build scripts kind of stuff, and it's nice for that, but personally, I wouldn't want to use it for anything non-trivial in a million years. Just my opinion though. > It doesn't try to redefine how websites are made, it simply makes it easier > to follow the > paradigms that have been in play for 15+ years. Well, from what I've seen Rails sucks. Really. I find it ugly to look at (JSP 1-ish), hardly has any abstraction and is all focussed on short-term productivity gain. I'm waaaaay more interested in long term gain (reuse, refactorability etc) and a good set of abstractions. I've stated this in various TSS threads, but what many people in my humble opinion don't seem to 'get' about OO is that it is as much about the abstractions (like the names, how classses relate to each other etc) than it is about the ability to create flexible software. > Now please don't take this as a bash towards Wicket, I'm just trying to > understand why Java web > frameworks are what they are and why people aren't creating frameworks that > make it easier and simpler to do what people have been doing for years. Well, you are mailing to a user list of a Java framework. This kind of discussion would better be had on TSS or similar sites. However, I don't mind discussing stuff like this here (though it gets tiring to have it again and again), just expect very straightforward answers back. Eelco ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
