Five years ago, there were intense debates of web frameworks. There were Java framework wars among Struts vs JSF vs Tapestry vs Wicket vs Spring vs etc along with the the prominent non-Java frameworks such as PHP, ASP.NET, Rails, etc.
Recently, I've been working on rich web applications that use: - 100% static HTML/JavaScript/CSS - Client-side JavaScript GUI framework such as ExtJS or YUI or something similar. - Server-side web services such as JAX-RS/JSON or something similar. No traditional server-side HTML web framework. This really seems like the perfect dev stack for the web. The tools are extremely easy to learn and use and debug. I can edit static HTML/ JS content and get feedback instantly or edit server-side code and restart web services in seconds. There is no code generation, which from past experience always leads to headaches eventually. Completely separate client/server source code is much easier to read, edit, and works much better with syntax highlighting than hybrid server-side template files that mixed template markup, server code, and client code. And, most importantly, the end web apps are extremely high quality, extremely fast, and fully customizable. Having done hundreds of web projects with dozens of web frameworks, and witnessing so much debate about which framework was better, I'm amazed at how much better web development is without any traditional framework piece at all. So, would people tend to agree? I'm also surprised that after how heated the server-side web framework wars got, few people have mentioned their obsolescence. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
