Jeppe Nejsum Madsen wrote: > Do you think you'll surpass your Rails speed? If yes, can you explain > what elements contribute to this?
I'm not sure, but I think so. Then again, it's difficult to say, because I'm doing more. There is definitely a bit less boilerplate for me with Lift, but not as much less as I'd like. One of the things I'm slowly working on is some best practices to reduce that boilerplate. But I build apps very differently in Lift than I did in Rails. Not just because Lift is different. Mostly, it's because I've refined my ideas and new libraries have made things easier. Where Lift sometimes slows me down is usually because I'm learning a Java library. For example, JAI has wasted a lot of my time to do something that I did fairly quickly with RMagick in Rails. But I can do a lot more with JAI once I have it down. That's the tradeoff, I guess. In Rails I wrote an extensive library of CRUD functionality that I used to build CRUD apps very quickly. My views were reduced to a few lines of code, controllers even more so. For example, a controller that had 350 lines of code was reduced to around 12 lines. A view that had 200 lines became 20 lines. That really made things fast. I hope to do the same for Lift eventually (if someone else hasn't done it first), but in the meantime, I'm not quite as fast. > For you, as a Java developer, I think you'll find the reverse true. With > Scala, you can continue to use the same Java libraries and tools that > you've used before. I think you'll learn Lift very quickly, and whenever > you're stuck, you'll have all that Java background to fall back on. > > > My thoughts exactly :-) I know I will not use Java for this project so > I'm willing to take a small hit initially. But staying on the JVM at > least provides som firm ground wrt to deployment, ops, runtime, tuning etc. Oh, you'd be surprised how handy having access to Java at any time is. You get all the benefits of Scala's syntax, but you can use pretty much anything out there that's Java -- without writing any Java. That's probably what persuaded me to try Lift more than anything else. I hate Java's verbosity (and all those damn XML files). But I love its speed and stability and the huge amount of code out there. > If your project is more than a simple app (as I'm certain it is), I > would go with JPA. Record is not ready yet, and Mapper is pretty > limited. For example, AFAIK Mapper doesn't do many-to-many associations. > I've had a lot of success with JPA/Hibernate, and it's getting pretty > solid in Lift now -- there are even Maven archetypes for it. > > I've yet to dig into Mapper/Record. What are the main benefits of these > (besides the obvious simplicity you get when not needing to use JPA)? I don't find Mapper any simpler than JPA, just different. You do get some stuff for free, but it doesn't ever seem to be what I need. Record is another matter. I haven't even looked at it yet, but from what I hear it bundles in oodles of goodness. I'm psyched. And I think you'll be able to use it with JPA... could be wrong about that, though. > > Lift is more than ready for production use. I've been using it in > production for more than six months. > > > Nice! Any numbers you can share (users, tables, data, transactions etc)? Funny thing: I have no idea. I build sites for clients and I've never concerned myself with traffic. I don't think any of them are very high traffic, though. Maybe a few thousand hits a day. Maybe more. But David Pollak has done some amazing stuff, so check with him on that. Chas. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" 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/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
