Just b'cos Clojure is a dynamic language, it doesn't make it anything like
Obj-C.
Clojure like Scala is a strongly typed language (typical of functional
languages). So I doubt Clojure being a better match for WO+EOF than Scala...
On 11/03/2011, at 7:47 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote:
> I actually think
Yes, of course.
On 14/03/2011, at 1:57 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Ravi Mendis wrote:
>>
>> IMO the primary motivation customers have for moving off WebObjects is its
>> inability to perform in an increasingly multi-core processor world.
>
> You are referring to the si
On Mar 13, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Ravi Mendis wrote:
>
> I recently evaluated a couple of these new app servers (for Scala) and i
> found Play! to be the slowest (in terms of
> scalability/concurrency)...considerably so.
> In fact i think Play! was slower than WebObjects...[though i can't remember
WO scales beautifully on multi core and multi server systems. I think much
better then many other systems.
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 13, 2011, at 21:07, Ravi Mendis wrote:
>
> I recently evaluated a couple of these new app servers (for Scala) and i
> found Play! to be the slowest (in terms of
Speaking of performance, one of the reasons I want "clean" URLs is to play with
reverse proxy and caching headers. I went to a conference (Confoo, I think we
should merge WOWODC with that conference next year...) where they talked about
using proxies and using Etags + Cache-* headers to reduce t
I recently evaluated a couple of these new app servers (for Scala) and i found
Play! to be the slowest (in terms of scalability/concurrency)...considerably so.
In fact i think Play! was slower than WebObjects...[though i can't remember for
sure]
IMO the primary motivation customers have for mov
On 11/03/2011, at 8:21 PM, Orphee Sandjo wrote:
>> On 11/03/2011, at 2:37 PM, Joe Little wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I grok groovy more than scala, but that isn't saying much. I
>>> just see Grails as getting everything right about Java (for the most
>>> part)
>>
>> nothing wrong with groovy or Grails.
On 11/03/2011, at 2:37 PM, Joe Little wrote:
Well, I grok groovy more than scala, but that isn't saying much. I
just see Grails as getting everything right about Java (for the most
part)
nothing wrong with groovy or Grails. For a statically typed, OO &
functional lang I'm liking scala. But
On 11/03/2011, at 2:37 PM, Joe Little wrote:
> Well, I grok groovy more than scala, but that isn't saying much. I
> just see Grails as getting everything right about Java (for the most
> part)
nothing wrong with groovy or Grails. For a statically typed, OO & functional
lang I'm liking scala. But
On 11/03/2011, at 8:50 AM, Ray Kiddy wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Anjo Krank wrote:
>
>> Just finished glancing through a Scala book... how do you implement faulting
>> with it? You know: Bar bar = foo.getBar(). The only thing I saw is
>> continuation-passing, which is async by nature?
> If you want the benefits of using Scala, you need to go to the old idea that
> every editing context will need its own entirely separate EOF stack. There is
> an obvious mis-match in the conceptual frames here
As I said, I just glanced through it, but it seems to me that what scala is
do
Well, I grok groovy more than scala, but that isn't saying much. I
just see Grails as getting everything right about Java (for the most
part) and picking what was right about Rails. Liftweb seems to make my
brain hurt, and Play is a minimal Grails without half the traction to
getting things done.
On Mar 10, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Anjo Krank wrote:
> Just finished glancing through a Scala book... how do you implement faulting
> with it? You know: Bar bar = foo.getBar(). The only thing I saw is
> continuation-passing, which is async by nature?
>
> Cheers, Anjo
>
In order to use WO stuff wit
Just finished glancing through a Scala book... how do you implement faulting
with it? You know: Bar bar = foo.getBar(). The only thing I saw is
continuation-passing, which is async by nature?
Cheers, Anjo
Am 10.03.2011 um 21:18 schrieb Lachlan Deck:
> lift (for scala) is pretty cool.
>
> htt
lift (for scala) is pretty cool.
http://liftweb.net/
http://demo.liftweb.net/
http://exploring.liftweb.net/
On 11/03/2011, at 3:25 AM, Joe Little wrote:
> Grails is more similar to WO than Play though -- especially
> considering GORM approaches some of the niceties of EOF and Wonder
> qualifiers
Grails is more similar to WO than Play though -- especially
considering GORM approaches some of the niceties of EOF and Wonder
qualifiers. Both easier in the easy case, but harder when you have
multiple relationships (stuck with Hibernate criteria builders then)
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Pa
Le 2011-03-09 à 20:57, Mike Schrag a écrit :
> of the non-wo java web frameworks, Play is the only one that ever looked
> interesting to me ... definitely inherits a lot of "remove the crap" from
> rails, which is nice. i haven't built anything with it, but it looked like a
> nice framework fr
of the non-wo java web frameworks, Play is the only one that ever looked
interesting to me ... definitely inherits a lot of "remove the crap" from
rails, which is nice. i haven't built anything with it, but it looked like a
nice framework from the docs and examples.
ms
On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:41
I saw a demo of the Play! Framework (http://www.playframework.org) at a
conference today, and I must say that it's the first time that I saw something
that I really want to try out. It seems like a good mix between Ruby on Rails
and WO, so I was wondering if someone else here have tried out that
19 matches
Mail list logo
