Re. branding == "What can you do for me", just compare the sites from Grails
and Lift.
Grails:
"Have your next Web 2.0 project done in weeks instead of months. Grails
delivers a new age of Java web application productivity."
- Ok, this is (claimed to be) a high productivity Web 2.0 framework.
"Get instant feedback, see instant results. Grails is the premier dynamic
language web framework for the JVM."
- So appeals to agile/TDDers. And no one is ever fired for choosing the JVM.
"Powered by Spring, Grails out performs the competition."
- Based on established technology, reducing my risk.
This is pretty good - if you're a Java guy looking to stay with the platform
and get RoR productivity, or a RoR guy looking for more performance, either
way you'll stay to here more and maybe do a google search to see what other
people say.
Lift:
""Lift is the only new framework in the last four years to offer fresh and
innovative approaches to web development. It's not just some incremental
improvements over the status quo, it redefines the state of the art. If you
are a web developer, you should learn Lift. Even if you don't wind up using
it everyday, it will change the way you approach web applications.""
- This is great to have on a CV. But as marketing material it is dismal.
Yes, the designer of Lift must be smart - but what problem does Lift solve
for me? And "redefines the state of the art" sounds like "a lot to learn"
and " Even if you don't wind up using it everyday" sounds like you WON'T end
up using it.
"Lift is an expressive and elegant framework for writing web applications.
Lift stresses the importance of security, maintainability, scalability and
performance, while allowing for high levels of developer productivity"
- If you throw much stuff at people at once they retain nothing. There is no
focus. Especially when the claims are vague ("expressive") and
all-embracing.
"Lift borrows from the best of existing frameworks, providing
Seaside's highly granular sessions and security
Rails fast flash-to-bang
Django's "more than just CRUD is included"
Wicket's designer-friendly templating style (see Lift View First)"
- This is too easily read as "Lift is very complicated". And "We are
technology obsessed rather than business problem focussed". So there go most
programmers and virtually all their managers.
(Btw - no one who wants to write "highly granular" anything should be
allowed near the first page of a website for anything. Except possibly sand.
"Highly granular" is NOT a benefit; a definite claim about the level of
security provided and the credibility of the same would be.)
The Grails site does everything right. It tells the reader if he is one of
the people Grails is designed for, reassuring him that it is reasonable for
him to invest more time. It tells him what Grails is good for, and it
reduces his perception of risk. Time is money for developers; wasted time is
wasted money - not just billable hours gone, but time that could have been
invested in something that will keep them employed. But the promised
benefit - RoR productvity, Java performance - is even more important than
the reassurance about the cost. At the moment the Lift site doesn't promise
anything at all - and it inadvertently hints at a very high cost.
Buit I have heard worse - there's the story of a Xerox Parc guy who was
asked whether the problem was that Xerox's marketing people tried to sell
the steak instead of the sizzle. "The steak?" he asked, incredulously. "If
you'd given our guys steaks to sell they'd have advertised 'Electrically
heated two week old dead meat..'"
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/superficial-first-impressions-from-a-rails-junkie-tp27802055p27805956.html
Sent from the liftweb mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
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.
