> What I object to is your implication that if someone doesn't use an
> "approved" framework, they are re-inventing the wheel and not trying to
> solve real-world problems.
No, no, no. That's not what I'm implying. That may be what you're
interpreting, but that's your choice, as it is was Claude's choice to
read "OO allows code reuse" as "OO allows code reuse for the first time
in the history of mankind." However, by definition if one creates a
product that accomplishes the same task as another product, they are
reinventing that product.
Approval is a different matter entirely. My choices are just that.
Mine. They are based on my personal experience and they are thus
affected by every project I have worked on and will work on. But those
choices are necessarily subjective because they are based on my
judgement and standards. Perhaps those people who complain about "code
bloat" have tighter standards than I do. Maybe they evaluate the
tradeoff of shaving 10 milliseconds from response time versus the 2
hours it may take to reach that point differently. These are personal
decisions. There is no Underwriter's Laboratories saying that your
application will fail because you wrote your own framework.
What I object to is the lack of reasoned answers. Surely these people
bright enough to write their own scalable, lightening fast, lean,
reusable-to-the-nines frameworks are also bright enough to realize that
there are at least two sides to every issue. That few things are truly
all black or all white. When someone asks, "Hey, I'm new to frameworks.
Should I use FB and/or Mach-II?" it serves little of the collective
good to stand up with a flamethrower and blast everything that is not
customized for a specific project.
> The "if you're not with us, you're against us"
> mentality some Fusecattle hold is just ridiculous. Just because
> someone
> creates their own framework doesn't mean they are "detractors". Let's
> face
> it, just because people didn't follow the path you've taken to acheive
> development Nirvana doesn't mean they went about it the wrong way. I
> don't
> like a lot of things; does that mean I detract from them?
No, but if all you do is say bad things about the things you don't like
then yes, you are detracting from them. "Detractor, noun: one who
disparages or belittles the worth of something."
> Also, I don't understand how using OS X and Linux cuts down on your
> administration time. These things are fallable just like everything
> else.
> In my experience, it is skill coupled with patience and the leveraging
> of
> specific tools (in some instances) that gets the job done.
Yes, everything is fallable. My PowerBook locked up hard last night, to
the point I had to power cycle it to recover. I'm sure there are
Windows users who can sympathize. I'm dissatisfied with almost every
method of software delivery and packaging in Linux with the instances
of cascading dependencies.
Patience is sometimes not my long suite. My experience in computers has
shown that more often than not, I get better results quicker by using
OS X (and Macintoshes in general) and Linux than attempting the same
with Windows. I'm know there are those with exact opposite experiences.
I know that leveraging the tools of OS X, FB, and Linux will the most
of the jobs done that I encounter. Perhaps if I had more patience I
could swallow spending the extra time developing the skills to
accomplish the same thing in Windows. I choose not to. That doesn't
mean you can't or shouldn't. Somethings are worth specialization, some
things aren't. Again, your choice.
One size doesn't fit all, whether it is FB, Mach-II, onTap, JSP,
Tapestry, or WebObjects. But each has it's good and bad points. It is
counterproductive to present subjective, one-sided answers to those
looking for an objective view.
--
Howard Fore, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
