+1 On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Daniel Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to quickly weigh in on the verbosity argument: > > As someone who has coded Java (and Perl, C++, etc) in every environment > from individual projects to multinational finance systems, I will say that > verbosity of code runs a far, far, distant third (or twentieth) to: > > 1. Readability/Understandability, and > 2. Maintainability > > By illustrating succinctly what type of model (if any) a component will > contain, generics in Wicket neatly accomplish point 1. > > By allowing your IDE to tell you when you're setting the wrong type of > model object in a component it neatly accomplishes point 2. > > You write your code once. You maintain it thousands of times. The trade-off > to me is perfectly clear, and this will be vindicated when Wicket-based > enterprise projects start conspicuously succeeding where others have failed. > > Also, don't mistake "verbosity" for "DRY-ness". COBOL was verbose because > it forced you to repeat yourself over and over. Java supports very elegant > reuse, so each piece of functionality is written just once. Thanks to > Annotations we've cut down (significantly) on boilerplate, and the whole > appeal of Wicket is its ability to enable reuse at the web tier. Between > generics, annotations and component reuse, this makes Wicket a very > DRY-friendly framework, and has vastly reduced the amount of code I've had > to cut for my clients. > > I've used every framework under the sun (no pun intended) and Wicket rules > over them all. > > Cheers, > Dan > > On 22/05/2008, at 07:20AM, Jonathan Locke wrote: > > > I'm jumping into this conversation very late and I simply can't catch up on > this entire thread, but isn't it possible to have a non-generic build of > the > generic framework for people that don't want to use generics? > > Skimming this discussion, in general, I tend to agree with Eelco. A good > general approach would be to fully generify the framework and then vote to > back out the things which are really not helpful (for example, although > page > is technically a component, pages often have no models, so it might be a > good thing to a un-generify). Once we have found a practical/optimal level > of generification should we vote on it. Let's not throw the baby out with > the bathwater. > > Also, for myself, I disagree that type safety is not a primary goal of > generics. Even if the API were completely clear already, I'd still prefer > more type safety. > > > Martijn Dashorst wrote: > > > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > Generics is type safety > > > I didn't say generics isn't type safety. But APPLYING generics for the > > Wicket framework API *ISN'T* its primary goal. API clarity *IS*. Less > > questions on the mailing list regarding DDC, ListView, etc. is the > > main goal for applying generics in Wicket. > > > I am against this abuse big time -1000 from me > > > I'm -1000000000000000^1000000000000 for abusing my eyes and brain in > > the way it currently is implemented in Wicket. It is completely and > > utterly unusable for beginners. There is no way this is going to make > > the number of questions on the mailinglist less (other than by scaring > > away anyone that wants to actually use the framework) > > > Martijn > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/%28Class%3C--extends-Page%3C-%3E%3E%29--casting-troubles-tp17355847p17375350.html > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > *Daniel Walmsley > Director, Firesyde <http://firesyde.com/> > e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > m: +61404864141 > * > > >
