on 2/10/01 6:36 AM, "Will Stranathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to disagree with you some. JSP isn't poor because it
> FORCES you to put Java code into your HTML - if it's poor,
> it's because it ALLOWS you to do that.
I never said it forces you to put Java code into your HTML.
> Just because people
> write bad examples of how to use it doesn't make it bad in
> and of itself, does it?
Actually, yes. The point being that the people creating the examples are the
places where people go to find out about the technology...ie: magazines,
books, etc. There is very few people creating good examples of JSP usage.
> Yes, I totally agree that mixing "backend" code with
> "frontend" HTML IS a "bad thing". But it's not entirely
> necessary to do things that way. (Okay, I'll give you some
> lattitude here - AFAIK, it's not exactly elementary to use
> JSP the RIGHT WAY.)
Bingo. That is the point of what I'm saying. Read the conclusion again.
> My point being, I think when you publish this, it's
> important to make the distinction between "why JSP sucks"
> and "why these tutorials on JSP suck."
Yes, I agree.
-jon
--
If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take
your pain to new levels. --Anonymous
<http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/> && <http://java.apache.org/turbine/>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
