> > Well, sure, but the illusion seems less illusory on a
> > desktop than in a web application. Thus, I submit that
> > it makes for a more useful model for desktop applications
> > than for HTTP applications, where the request-response
> > model sticks out like a sore thumb.
>
> Well, see, it's not the request-response model that's the
> problem. It's the fact that browsers _must_ render a new web
> page when they start a request-response cycle. That's the
> problem. Oh sure, there are ways around this, but they're
> all a pain.
Well, that's what makes it stand out like a sore thumb. The fact is,
browsers weren't intended as application interfaces, but here we all are
anyway. To be a competent web developer, it's important to understand the
limitations of browsers and how they interact with servers. Maybe it won't
be as necessary to understand this in the future, when we're all developing
with Flash MXXX and Windows Web Forms 2005 and whatever else comes up, but
it is now. Thus, to me, providing another layer of abstraction on top of
this to make everything look like it's event-driven seems to be potentially
fraught with hazards.
> None, really. However, events happen all the time in the
> real world. Your car explodes. Frogs fall from the sky.
Somehow, I don't think that's how people came up with the idea of the GUI
application.
> Well, this is the same case in traditional desktop GUIs as
> well! There's absolutely no correlation between, say, the
> code you wrote for a pretty Swing window and the pixels that
> appear on the screen, other than the code that declares it.
Perhaps, but the illusion certainly seems more real with a desktop GUI
application, since the surrounding desktop itself follows the same illusion,
and it's possible to develop GUI applications without knowing anything
beyond the illusion. I don't think that's true for web applications.
> I'm not a huge "if" fan when I'm using an OO language.
> Anytime I write something like:
>
> if (condition) {
> do this
> }else
> {
> do that
> }
>
> I consider it a candidate for refactoring.
That actually strikes me as the best argument yet in its favor.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Get the mailserver that powers this list at
http://www.coolfusion.com
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
