The grid doesn't seem useful to me. Maybe if I heard the presentation I'd see the value.
You have to make some value judgements. To me the values are off the top of my head (with no weighting or order, and probably incomplete): 1) restful URLs 2) ease of development/productivity 3) performance 4) active community 5) ability for designers to "tweak" (easy CSS/HTML tweaks w/o having to build/restart) 6) intuitiveness 7) ease of testing 8) weight (is it huge, does it take forever to start?) 9) extensibility Rails wins on all this except performance, but it's ruby which is a non-starter for most Java shops >From what I see Play is the best Java alternative. It has much of the rails philosophy, ease but it's in Java. I also say this without developing a major app in Play. I'd like to hear other's thoughts on this who have used Play extensively. On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:34:14 +0100, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> "worse" on what dimension? > > > Don't ask me, of course, ask the presentation author :-) I see a diagram > where frameworks are ordered by a certain score, which if I understand well > is created by summing intermediate values. It's not clear to me who gave > those values. > > > > -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > [email protected] > http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it -- 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.
