Exactly. I am amazed that this is not crystal clear to anyone, except the usuals.
On 4/5/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dakota Jack wrote: > > I would like to disabuse the "usuals" of an assumption that seems to > pervade > > these discussions, viz., that everything is open for discussion and > > any statement > > is warranted. That simply is not consistent with intelligent > discussion. > > The very idea that Struts 1.x is a viable choice for a new project is > itself > > really questionable. > > The only conditions where I see it making sense is for people who > already have a significant investment in using Struts 1.x and, > therefore, know all the various API's and the various gotchas like the > backs of their hands. > > Then, pragmatically speaking, it could well be the easiest, fastest way > for those people to crank out some typical kind of web app. > > But what started off this discussion was a query from someone who had > never used Struts (or any competing java framework) before. Given those > parameters, it seems crazy to recommend Struts 1.x at this stage of > history. If the developers of the thing basically say it's obsolete and > won't be developed further, why on earth should this not be taken at > face value? > > Jonathan Revusky > -- > lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > > > I have to wonder how anyone looking at the issues > > could think that and be taken seriously. Is there nothing on this list > that > > is settled truth? Nothing? I thought at least the fact that this > community > > has abandoned Struts 1.x as second rate ought to be unassailable grounds > for > > NOT recommending it to people asking for advice. But, I guess not. I > don't > > know if a normal conversation is possible with this community. > > > > On 4/5/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>On Wed, April 5, 2006 11:46 am, Dakota Jack said: > >> > >>>Frank, this is uncalled for. > >> > >>Talk about uncalled for... you call me deplorable and ignorant in > another > >>post, and what *I* said is uncalled for? > >> > >> > >>>Jonathan is clearly right on this and you > >>>are > >>>clearly wrong. > >> > >>I bow to your omnipotence. You clearly have all the answers, and the > rest > >>of us are just lucky to be living on the same planet as you. I would > not > >>dare to debate you, since I am so clearly, totally and utterly wrong > about > >>everything. > >> > >>And as with Jonathan, feel free to have the last word. I've already > been > >>drawn in more than I should have allowed. Then again, when dealing with > >>someone so clearly superior to myself, how could I have hoped to do > >>better? > >> > >>Frank > >> > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its > back." > > ~Dakota Jack~ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
