You'll learn Python quickly enough anyhow. Python is not very hard.
2010/11/5 Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Mike Meyer
mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org wrote:
This affect only works if the languages are sufficiently different to
have
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:59 AM, iko...@gmail.com iko...@gmail.com wrote:
You'll learn Python quickly enough anyhow. Python is not very hard.
I generally pick up new programming languages pretty quickly. I
started my (working) life as a compiler writer and spent three years
prior doing research
On Nov 3, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Sean Corfield wrote:
Why are folks so insistent on monolingual systems?
Business reasons. Two languages means staffing expertise in both languages,
either people who know both and cost more, or two people who cost less. In
compsci terms, it's another dependency,
Steven Arnold thoth.amon.i...@gmail.com wrote ..
On Nov 3, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Sean Corfield wrote:
Why are folks so insistent on monolingual systems?
Business reasons. Two languages means staffing expertise in both languages,
either
people who know both and cost more, or two people who
On Nov 5, 2010, at 10:20 AM, lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote:
Having expert people mastering several tools in any project increases the like
hood of being on time and within budget.
I agree partially. Given unlimited resources, it would be great for all the
people on the project to have a
Steven Arnold thoth.amon.i...@gmail.com wrote ..
On Nov 5, 2010, at 10:20 AM, lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote:
Having expert people mastering several tools in any project increases the
like
hood of being on time and within budget.
I agree partially. Given unlimited resources, it
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:42 PM, lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote:
Customers are not getting usable components delivered in the near future.
They just get vague promises that something will be delivered in x years.
Nothing tangible there just vapor ware.
That's more than Half-Life fans are
Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote ..
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:42 PM, lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote:
Customers are not getting usable components delivered in the near future.
They just get vague promises that something will be delivered in x years.
Nothing tangible there just vapor
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 20:51, Mike Meyer
mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org wrote:
Finding good people is hard enough that wanting them to be good in
three or four languages is enough to break the camels back. If you've
got time to cross-train them - then you don't need
I've
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:42 PM, lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote:
That's why the large consulting organizations typically fail...
I agree with most of your points. So let me address the one point which was
the original subject of the thread...
The primary point I was making was that each new
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Michael Ossareh ossa...@gmail.com wrote:
I've regularly found that the multi-disciplinarian programmer is far more
adept at solving issues in a creative manner than the I've a skilled hammer
and I'll wield it in the direction of any nail-mono-linguistic
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 13:42:44 -0700
Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Michael Ossareh ossa...@gmail.com wrote:
I've regularly found that the multi-disciplinarian programmer is far more
adept at solving issues in a creative manner than the I've a
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:20 PM, lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote:
Ken Wesson kwess...@gmail.com wrote ..
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:42 PM, lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote:
Customers are not getting usable components delivered in the near future.
They just get vague promises that something
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Mike Meyer
mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org wrote:
This affect only works if the languages are sufficiently different to
have different obvious solutions for a large number of problems.
This is why people recommend learning a LISP even if you'll never
Ok... Fair enough. Most of my comment related to Spring, not to
Grails.
Grails has other issues which I won't get into here.
I have nothing but respect for Rails, and I look forward to the day
when Clojure has a comparable system.
On Nov 2, 2:32 pm, Wilson MacGyver wmacgy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Luke VanderHart
luke.vanderh...@gmail.com wrote:
I have nothing but respect for Rails, and I look forward to the day
when Clojure has a comparable system.
I sort of have to ask why? - what's wrong with using Rails on JRuby
for the front end and Clojure for the
Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote ..
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Luke VanderHart
luke.vanderh...@gmail.com wrote:
I have nothing but respect for Rails, and I look forward to the day
when Clojure has a comparable system.
I sort of have to ask why? - what's wrong with using
most companys i know - i have come around a lot last
years - clearly prefer spring to grails because:
1. the integration-aspect is much more important for them than partial
productivity win or promise.
2. java is established in their tech portfolio groovy is not
clojure is completely out of
I have no problem at all with polyglot systems.
That said, Clojure, as a general-purpose programming language, is in
my subjective opinion superior to Ruby. Furthermore, there is nothing
special about Ruby that makes it particularly suited to webapps (MVC
webapps, perhaps, but MVC is not the only
, and better flow to the programming.
Thanks,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca
Sender: clojure@googlegroups.com
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:52:13
To: clojure@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: clojure@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: From jetty to war?
Sean Corfield
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:59 AM, buckmeist...@gmail.com wrote:
This was/is one of the original selling points and philosophies of Rails - a
monolingual system should mean less context switching, less glue code for
things to talk to each other, fewer bugs and mistakes stemming from
Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote ..
Why are folks so insistent on monolingual systems?
We're facing that now, and with a mono-lingual system, you know
everyone can contribute to any part of the project. If different parts
are in different languages, then people working in one area
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Mike Meyer
mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org wrote:
We're facing that now, and with a mono-lingual system, you know
everyone can contribute to any part of the project. If different parts
are in different languages, then people working in one area won't
btw.: me too has great respect for ruby/rails
one of the nice aspects of clojure is, that multiple
currents and flavours of modern programming
accumulate/reconvene in there.
like evolution. diversity is good. it produces its own
power and controversy.
my fazit: clojure has great potential for
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:26:13 -0700
Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Mike Meyer
mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org wrote:
We're facing that now, and with a mono-lingual system, you know
everyone can contribute to any part of the project. If
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Mike Meyer
mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org wrote:
Solution: don't have monolingual programmers on your team :)
What, we shouldn't hire Americans? :-)
Normally that joke is aimed at Brits like me :)
That only helps if everyone actually knows all the
fanvie, two comments:
1. It will get better over time, of course, as standard practices for
Clojure shake out.
2. You don't need 99% of the special crap that Spring/Grails gives
you. Clojure's abstractions are smaller, yes, but the're just as
powerful, and give you more control, in a more
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Luke VanderHart
luke.vanderh...@gmail.com wrote:
fanvie, two comments:
2. You don't need 99% of the special crap that Spring/Grails gives
you. Clojure's abstractions are smaller, yes, but the're just as
powerful, and give you more control, in a more
Luke, I must agree with Wilson, other frameworks have some advantages
presently over Clojure for certain tasks.
We use RAILS and JRuby to create CRUD GUIs with ActiveScaffold.
Our controllers are typically 20 lines or less of configuration statements...
We do not need to maintain HTML templates
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Luke VanderHart
luke.vanderh...@gmail.com wrote:
fanvie, two comments:
1. It will get better over time, of course, as standard practices for
Clojure shake out.
2. You don't need 99% of the special crap that Spring/Grails gives
you. Clojure's abstractions are
Ahem..
Your comment misses the point. We chose RAILS because it met 90% of our
needs... not because of some claims it would solve any problem.
We then selected RAILS over Grails then based on the time it required us to
code, the # of code lines was a very good measure then to make our final
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:26 PM, lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote:
Doing the reverse is non sense (choosing a framework based on some hyped
reviews and then use for every need).
...
We cannot rewrite the whole universe in Clojure in one year. That's a fact.
It's improving but will take some
Ok, I've got a simple web application that works running on embedded
jetty using the ring jetty adapter. I would now like to deploy it in
an infrastructure that will restart it if it dies, the system reboots,
etc. I've already got tomcat doing most of that, so the obvious choice
is a WAR file.
i dont see a gen-class your snippet:
(ns mywebapp.firstservlet
(:use [ring.util.servlet :only (defservice)])
...
(:gen-class
:extends javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet))
(defservice app)
WEB-INF/web.xml:
web-app
servlet
servlet-namefirstservlet/servlet-name
my short-time experience with implementing webapps on
a clojure-base is:
i feel like in the very early days of java-servlet-api and j2ee.
productivity way way way behind springframework or grails
i don't even want to think about doing something sophisticated
like security-integration.
and of
35 matches
Mail list logo
