RE: In significant need of help.

Glenn, can I say that I see your point, even if I don't agree with it?
<grin>

What I mean by that is that I understand that Velocity does a pretty
good job of not allowing you to put any sort of execution code in the
template, and so yes, it "protects you from yourself".  But I disagree
that I need protection.

More importantly, I don't think that the way to get good code is to
cripple the coder.  This is what many 4GLs and drag'n'drop programming
tools do; they lock you into what the language or tool designer thinks
is proper.  Me, I prefer to have the ability, when necessary, to be able
to do whatever needs to be done.  I trust my own ability to program.

If your goal is to remove functionality so that programmers can't make
mistakes, I don't think it's the right philosophy.  Instead, what should
be made available is a nice set of examples to show how to properly
architect systems.  That's what I think is missing from today's world:
there are no good examples of properly built systems.

Now, is the power of JSPs dangerous?  Absolutely.  But while I wouldn't
necessarily want an application programmer access to do system-level
programming, I think that removing the capability is the wrong
direction.

Joe


> From: Glenn Holmer
> 
> On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 13:35 -0500, Joe Pluta wrote:
> > I find this statement interesting, Pete.  Why do you consider
FreeMarker
> > more MVC than JSP?  With a properly written JSP, all the model
> > information is passed via beans, and the JSP simply displays them.
> 
> Yes, well, "properly written" is the key phrase here :)  Most
> programmers simply can't be trusted not to put code in the
presentation
> layer if it is possible.  You have a deadline, you don't want to
> recompile the servlet, so you add a Java scriptlet to the JSP, "just
> this once"... and then one morning you wake up and find you can't read
> your own code any more :)
> 
> That's why e.g. Velocity is so popular; it protects you from yourself.