Just for the record, I did not write that below.... ______________________________________________________________________ Alex Duffield . Principal . InControl Solutions . http:// www.incontrolsolutions.com
On 19-Feb-07, at 2:53 AM, Chris Lear wrote: > > * Phlip wrote (18/02/07 02:15): >> Alex Duffield wrote: >> > [...] >> >> Next, never write specific code in a low-level language - HTML, SQL, >> JavaScript, etc. - if a high-level generator is available to >> integrate that >> code with your domain objects, and produce generic code. If such a >> generator >> is not available, for external reasons, then by all means write >> the code in >> the low-level language! > > Wow - HTML, SQL and Javascript descibed as "low-level"! I can > understand > Assembly language being low-level, but SQL and Javascript are > standards-based (normally interpreted) languages designed to shield > programmers from implementation differences (though perhaps this > doesn't > work perfectly in practice), and HTML is not a programming language at > all, but another standard designed to overcome OS interoperability > problems from the start. If these are now low-level, what's high- > level? > Ruby? Does that run the same on every computer in the world without > local implementation differences? > > If what you mean is "never write client-side code, when you can > auto-generate it using server-side code (on a server of your choice)", > then maybe you have a point. I don't like it, but perhaps it's the way > the world is going. Time will tell. > > Chris > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" 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/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
