> I am currently in the market for a digital video camera. I have never > owned such a gadget before.
Ha! this proves what such moron you are! you do NOT pay for struts! it is free!!! come back when you have some point worth discussing!!!!!!!!! K. On 4/5/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bart Busschots wrote: > > Jonathan Revusky wrote: > > > >> What do you mean "so what", Frank? If one is new to the java web > >> application space, why on earth should one start using a framework > >> like Struts Classic that (a) is not state of the art and (b) is not > >> going to be developed any further? > >> > >> WHY? > > > > Because it does what you need? Because it does MORE than you need? > > Bart, > > I am currently in the market for a digital video camera. I have never > owned such a gadget before. I have not yet done much research into this > product category, but I take as a given that a lot of progress has been > happening in the last few years. Newer models are both far less > weighty/bulky than those of a few years ago, and more featureful. And > probably easier to use as well. > > Now, I have little doubt that any model that was state of the art 4 > years ago does what I need -- does MORE than what I need. However, I > just take as a given that I will try to get something that is currently > state of the art, not a 4-year-old model. > > This *is* common sense. > > > Because there is a much larger community out there with the skills you > > need? Because there are more online resources to help you when you get > > stuck? > > There are plenty of online resources for things like Spring and Webwork > and plenty of people to help you when you get stuck. > > > Because the platform is stable, reliable and tested in the real > > world? I could go on but I think you get the point. The bleeding edge is > > NOT a good place to be on a production system! If it ain't broke, don't > > fix it! > > The main competitors to Struts, such as Spring MVC and Webwork are not > bleeding edge. For example, in the case of Webwork, well known java web > applications, such as Jive forums, Confluence, and JIRA, are built on > top of Webwork. We are not talking about bleeding edge technologies. > > > > > I get very annoyed when people insist that you have to be at the > > bleeding edge of everything or you're being stupid. That's just not a > > real world view of things, it's an idealized view from an ivory tower IMO. > > Bart, if I already owned a digital video camera that was 4 years behind > the state of the art, and it did everything I needed, I would probably > not bother to buy a new one. > > However, if I am in the market for a new one, and I have never owned > such a gadget before (and that is my exact case) I will naturally try > to buy something that is roughly the current state of the art (within > the parameters of my budget, of course.) > > Now, that some huckster salesman some place tries to sell me a model > they have lying around that is 4 years out of date is understandable. > The guy is on commission and has to eat. What the excuse of people like > you and Frank and others is, I really don't know.... > > > > > >>> Does Struts as it exists today serve a great many people very well? > >>> Yes. Does everyone need every single new feature available out > >>> there? No. You know, I've had my complaints as well, but > >>> ultimately, if the offering is doing the job for so many, how does > >>> how far behind the state of the art it is really matter? > >> > >> > >> What you're saying is senseless IMO. In this discussion, the onus is > >> not on me to explain why somebody new to the java web app space should > >> not use Struts 1.x. The onus is on the other side of the debate to > >> explain why somebody should use it, given that it is (a) quite far > >> behind the state of the art and (b) is not going to be developed any > >> further. > > > > See above points and it IS being developed further, 1.3 is on the way! > > Bah, humbug. You're talking about something that is, at best, an > incremental refinement to a product that is something around 4 years out > of date. Whatever improvements it offers are really only of interest to > people who already have some sunk investment in Struts 1.x. Clearly, > someone new to this space should be looking for a more state-of-the-art > alternative. > > Besides, Struts Action 2.0 is on the way (!) and that *is* Webwork. > Isn't that a more sensible starting point for someone new to this space? > > Jonathan Revusky > -- > lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > > > > >> > >> The onus is on you to explain why somebody should not do the > >> common-sensical thing of looking for something that is state of the > >> art and that will have an ongoing development effort behind it. Such a > >> thing could be Webwork a.k.a. Struts Action 2, or *maybe* this Shale > >> thing or it could be something else. > >> > > Looking for state of the art is not common-sensical! In the real world > > there are many more factors to consider than just wither or not you use > > the latest bleeding edge technology. Stability and a proven track record > > count for a lot as do the availability of skills and help and > > documentation and books etc. You are looking at just a single factor and > > assuming it is the only factor when it simply isn't in the real world. > > > > Bart. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
