since we're discussing efficient development with .net , i thought i'd shoot the question ummm ....
what do you guys think of Ruby on Rails ? On 12/8/05, Patrick Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please see comments below :). > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:01 PM > > To: Tapestry users > > Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion > > > > Well actually you can download Java and buy MyEclipse for $30. > > > > Now you actually have a point... but the problem is, what happens when > > it just doesn't work? When you pop in the .NET CDs, start developing, > > and notice you don't have good internationalization, that your pages > > suck at web standards (yeah, those BGCOLOR properties in Visual Studio > > are just *great*!) and that if you want a little bit from the "way they > > do it" (i'm not saying "the right way to do it" because it's NOT the > > right way!) you can't do nothing. Ahh... if you want to see the source > > code because the documentation's lacking ? > > I agree about 80% with what you have to say; I find programming in > .net to be sort of like using public transport. It gets me 80% of the way > there very efficiently, but then I'm ****** and have to walk the last half > mile through the rain. .NET definitely has a ".net" way of doing things and > god help you if you want to stray from the path. > If you're willing to live within those restrictions though, it > works. I've yet to run into something I flat *couldn't* do with .net. It was > usually more that I couldn't do it the way I wanted to do it and the .net > way was very microsofty and weird. That's a question of taste through rather > than functionality in my book. > Also, (and I can't vouch for this personally because I was never a > VB jockey), my suspicion is that a lot of the .NETism that you and I think > are just f-ing wonkers, and probably familiar VB paradigms that make perfect > sense to folks who have a MS background. > > > > > What I value most of the Java community is your chance to actually make > > a difference in what you need and what's the best way of doing things > > (well in almost every project but the dictatorial-managed-Hibernate > > one). It's the "open source" part what I like the most - not quite the > > technology, which I find lacking in some areas. > > I enjoy that as well, but I can't claim it's a business reason to > recommend an OS stack. "Hey boss, can we use java and tapestry instead of > .net because I'll get a kick out of working on tapestry and, who knows, I > might be able to contribute some code back to the commuity." > > "It'll let me develop faster" is a business case. > "It'll let me develop less buggy code" is a business case. > "It's backed by the world's largest software company and we'll > always have somebody to call if it breaks" is a business case. > "It'll run 3X as fast" may, or may not, be a business case. > > "I like playing with open source" is not, unfortunately, a business > case :). > > --- Pat > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
