Dave, Sorry for bothering you again, but can we go it through on an example?
Lets assume I hava a very small website to build (I actually did that one, so I know the real effort and duration). A pretty simple document management system, for a small intranet, I'm sure a typical application. It contains view and edit interfaces, in the edit interface you can manage document vendors, document type (like manual, presentation, advertisement material and so), and you can upload document and assign properties to it: the type of the document, the vendor of the document and some description. The access is limited to restricted users. In the view interface you are able to select documents by type, or vendor or type and vendor, or get the full list. The view interface can be seen under http://www2.anotheria.net/konet/cms/showPage? Can you give me an estimation how long would it be to program this in java and ruby? The app is for very small number of customers, so scaleability is not a requirement, files and data are stored in the file system. Maybe with real estimations I would be able to understand the benefits :-) thanx for your time regards Leon On 2/21/06, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leon Rosenberg wrote: > > I rather ment things like interception/reflection or/and AOP :-) > > > Ah. > > Lots of reflection. AOP is being actively discussed for Ruby2. Pure-Ruby > implementations for simple AOP exist but I've not used them. > > Pardon me for being devils advocate, but how do you measure it? > > Talking about the codebase, are you talking about functional code or > > whole code? I agree that 20-30% of java code is dump (getters/setters > > and so on) but dump code is generated by an IDE so it's not an issue. > > How fast are "fast" development cycles? > > > Well, I have measured things in various ways. > > Codebase size: yep, my IDE will generate a lot, and this makes Java > bearable. But the code is still there; just because I don't type it > doesn't mean I don't have to comprehend it. Character-wise my Ruby/RoR > code is about 1/3-1/2 the size of feature-comparable J2EE apps. That's a > lot less "stuff" I have to look at even if it was auto-generated. > > Development time: I've coded both J2EE=>RoR and RoR=>J2EE. I've coded > just RoR and just J2EE apps. It usually takes me about 1/2 the time to > code an RoR application, but that's just an average. > > If I was more adept with AppFuse (or Trails, I still don't remember > which is which) I suspect the timing would be more similar. > > As far as I understand you have no strong typing, right? > > > That is correct at this point. Obviously you can check types within a > method. > > Dynamic- vs. strong-typing is one of those arguments that has gone, and > will go, on forever. > > I think strong typing is great for large, distributed teams of generally > average programmers. I think dynamic typing is great for smaller, > "better" development teams, and compiler optimization. For instance, in > Common Lisp I'll often write stuff with no thought of typing then as > development progresses I'll add typing info. > > The canonical "Languages for the Masses" vs. "Languages for Smart > People" article is at: > > http://www.paulgraham.com/vanlfsp.html > > It's somewhat deliberately provocative, but interesting. > > Another consideration for me, at least, is that Ruby "feels" better. > Part of that is simply personality, part of it is that it's quite a bit > more like what I'm used to (SmallTalk, Lisp, Forth). I have a LOT more > fun programming in Ruby than Java. This is an intangible, but an > important one for me. > > Bear in mind that I still recommend PHP for large-scale production > sites, but I am slowly using RoR for more small-ish sites. > > Dave > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
