From: albartell

But I do my JSP Model 2 for RPG programmers seminar around the country
and
everybody gets it.

Your JSP Model 2 is a lot different than learning the entire complexity of
Java and popular frameworks. You have done a good job of narrowing it
down
to a set of specific class types and necessary jar files (if any). That
approach isn't prevalent in the Java space, instead everyone is left to
their own demise of hoping their servlet implementation doesn't conflict
with their ORM solution, etc, etc.

But forgive me, but aren't you asking people to use third party frameworks
that may not even work with some database implementations? As far as I
know, GRAILS is pretty much synced up with Spring and Hibernate; what if you
don't use those?


What are you talking about? I don't use ANY configuration files for my
stuff, Aaron. And using JAR files is no different than using DLLs or
included PHP files or anything else. And anyway I only use one JAR file:
the Java toolbox.

Why don't you broaden your scope outside of what YOU do and think of what
OTHERs are using Java for?

Why should I? You keep espousing frameworks, which are task-specific pieces
of code designed to make programming easier. My architecture, which doesn't
require ANY third party code, does the same thing: it makes development
easier.

So why is my approach, in which you learn enough Java to own ALL of the code
in your system, worse than your approach, in which you rely on the largesse
of the Open Source community and hope they fix the bugs you need fixed?

Basically, I teach you enough Java so that you don't need to rely on other
people's code. That's a good thing, Aaron.


I wasn't addressing your approach directly.

No, you were complaining about Java, as usual. Your opinion is that Java is
too hard to learn, and the fact is that I've created a development
environment in which it is not. If you stepped back and considered my
development approach a framework - if it were a shiny new Open Source
project that wasn't written by Joe Pluta - you would probably embrace it.

And the beauty of my framework is that it's built on native Java code and
once you learn it, you're not beholden to ANY third party code. No new
language, no frameworks, no jars except what you've written (and the Java
toolbox from IBM).



You
know what I am talking about and you know that using your approach is
incredibly minority compared to what others are doing.

Actually, it's not. EGL does exactly this: it provides a thin presentation
layer and uses Java as a connector to back end business logic (and it also
gives you the ability to write your business logic in EGL). EGL just
generates the Java for you, whereas in my technique you have to write the
connecting plumbing.


I haven't used groovy or grails yet, so thanks for your insight.

"I think the Java community/creators are finally realizing that the
language, to gain broad acceptance, needs less of a scholarly approach and
more of a get'er done approach - which I believe grails.org is attempting to
do."

You haven't used Groovy or GRAILS, but you're using it as a sign that the
Java community is somehow planning to dumb down the programming paradigm.

Interesting read on that, not sure I follow it.


Joe



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.