On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Eric Kizaki <erickiz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was not expecting so much hate.  I guess now I am infamous in the Java
> world now.  Look, it is just my opinion.  Not many people actually stopped
> to address many of my points.  They just immediately bashed me.

Like someone else said, you actually weren't really bashed.  The great
majority of replies (at least within this thread and this community) have
been very cordial, especially considering the tone of your initial email -
which I would go so far as to call "rude".

> I am sticking with Wicket because it is required for work.  I am able to do
> stuff in it but it seems unnecessarily complicated.  I own the “Wicket in
> Action” book and “Enjoying Web Development with Wicket Book” by Kent Ka Iok
> Tong.  The second book is much more practical.  Without these books I would
> not be able to do anything in Wicket.  That is why I did not mention
> documentation.  I would prefer to just be able to check out something like
> this http://static.springsource.org/docs/petclinic.html.  This is a real
> working application that shows how to do things with databases etc.  With
> Wicket, I had to string a bunch of snippets together and read two books.  I
> am still not sure I am doing things the best way.

I'm actually working on putting together several example applications with
Wicket.  The first one will use Wicket, Spring, Hibernate Search (which
uses Lucene).  I hope to have it ready sometime next month.  From there I
may expand it to other variations (for instance, one with JCR/Brix).  It
(or they) will also be available as Maven archetypes for you to create your
own applications with.

PS here: if anyone is interested in helping with that, feel free to shoot
me an off-list email.

> To people who say I am inexperienced, I have tried JSF and GWT.  Wicket is
> better than both of those.  JSF has an invasive and complicated lifecycle.
> When I saw the lifecycle diagram I just stopped even looking into it.  GWT
> uses terrible Swing style layouts and all these crappy interfaces for RPC.
> There was also no real help on the server.

I don't mean the following to be rude, but from your LinkedIn profile
(which was linked to earlier in the thread), I think saying you are
inexperienced is a fair assessment from those who have said it.  From your
profile it looks like out of school you've done six months of ColdFusion
development, and just started Java this month.  You mention that Apache
Wicket is one of your specialties, but it really doesn't sound like you've
been using it, or any of the other major Java frameworks, for a long enough
time to say you're experienced.  I wrote a C app once (
https://github.com/jthomerson/pastebinc) but I wouldn't say that makes me
"experienced".  I'm inexperienced in C although I've been making a living
programming for nearly 14 years.  Trying a framework for a week or two or
even a month or two doesn't make you experienced in it.

> At least with Wicket I can still
> use HTML and CSS for my layouts.  However, these component based frameworks
> are still way too complicated for a simple task:  building a web page.

I think that's one of the keys.  If all you are doing is "building a web
page" - use something else.  I tell my clients that.  Wicket is great at
building web *applications*.  Complex applications.  The kind that many
enterprises need.  The kind that have complex interfaces with lots of
dynamic rules, etc.  I would not use Wicket to build Craigslist.  The
interface and front-end logic is too simple.  Wicket *excels* beyond any
other framework I've worked with when used for complex applications.

> In my humble opinion Spring MVC done right (no scriplets) with JSTL & EL
> and
> jQuery is better than Wicket.  You can also use Velocity templating.  I
> have
> also used Swing to build desktop apps.  I would not say Swing is a shining
> example of how to build GUIs.  I thought it was pretty bad, verbose, and
> impractical.  The Play Framework has the right idea:  stateless and
> restful.
> No clunky components and over-engineered objected-oriented baggage.
> Here is a quote from the Restlet page
> (http://www.restlet.org/about/introduction):
> “While powerful for complex centralized models, the object-oriented
> paradigm
> isn't always the best suited for Web development. Java developers need
> realize this and start thinking more RESTfully when developing new Web
> servers or new AJAX-based Web clients. The Restlet project is providing a
> simple yet solid foundation that can get you started right away on the Web
> 2.0.”
> - Jérôme Louvel, Restlet founder
> Maybe you can look up his Linkdin and start bashing him too.  Oh no he said
> object-oriented is not the Holy Grail!

Rather than being sarcastic and snarky, please re-read your own quote.  HE
said "isn't always the best suited for Web development".  I put the food on
my family's table by teaching other people how to use Wicket and writing
Wicket applications and I just told you the same things - it's not the
silver bullet for every application on the internet.  You'll find a lot of
pragmatic and open-minded developers in this community.  But you can't come
think you're going to teach us all something by telling us how stupid we
are and talking in a demeaning way.

> I am definitely in the “I like to hand-code HTML, CSS, and Javascript”
> camp.

You should love Wicket then.  It gives you absolute control over your HTML.
 You won't get that in JSF (

> I even like hand-coding SQL.  I get complete control.  These are all pretty
> easy languages; most of them are declarative.  They are easier than Java.
>  I
> know most Java developers do not feel this way and want to just do
> everything in Java.  I think you should use the best tool for the job.
>  Java
> is a mediocre tool to use in every domain.

I agree.  I use a fair amount of other languages within various
applications that I write.  I'm even refactoring some image and video
processing that I previously did in Java to be done with a combination of
bash and perl using linux applications, communicating with my Java app
through STOMP (through ActiveMQ).  It's fun stuff.  Much better than
image/video processing in Java, which is a total nightmare for the simple
things I need.

Jeremy Thomerson
*Need a CMS for Wicket?  Use Brix! http://brixcms.org*

Reply via email to