When Apple dropped the price of WO I was about to debunk, but to be quite open about it Robert, it has been some of your posts on this issue that have galvanised my position on this toward WiTango, even though it offered java deployment when WiTango didn't.
I myself have grown as a programmer through using WiTango and using this list, though I could never put myself in the same category as some of the members of this list, obviously. Having said that, there has never been a project that I haven't been able to complete successfully using Tango, and on some of the earlier ones we were pushing the envelope somewhat. My next projects will certainly test the ease of development though: - a full featured IMAP webmail interface for my celtic community site - a celtic community college where all of the courses are conducted securely online. - and maybe a XML web site accessing Novell's Directory services pulling together 8 disparate databases. Garth At 10:28 1/08/02 -0700, you wrote: >It is more than just getting used to something. I literally spent over 30 >days like a monk with WO. It is just not possible to develop as quickly >IMHO. Or I would have gutted it out. I will look for them, but there have >been several articles written about this, that WO is a burden on small to >medium size apps, and 90% of development falls into this category. If you >are going to write the ecommerce site for dell, use WO. Its rigid >object/class structure lends itself to a huge project with multiple >developers. But I dare say that tango has the ability to do this also, you >just also have the ability to "cheat" and get it done quickly. > >A good example is the TCF. A TCF should be an object, like a class file in >java, a separate piece of code with an input/output inteface. It should >adhere to this strict structure so that it can only manipulate what it is >passed, and then spit out its output. But we all know that we can access >many variables from with the TCF and sometimes use it in ways that makes it >not an "object" at all. But who cares. I choose to use TCFs as true objects >for code portability across applications. If a developer wants to "cheat", >let him. That is part of the greatness of Witango, it is as flexible or as >rigid as you desire. I have a few apps that I wrote when I was a newbie, >that I would be embarrassed to share, but at least I got the job done. I >would never have been able to tackle WO at that level. But as I have grown >as a developer, I would put my apps up with anyones. They are structured, >and logical. Witango helped me get there. > >Sorry for the rambling. > >-- > >Robert Garcia >BigHead Technology >2781 N Carlmont Pl >Simi Valley, CA 93065 >Phone 805.501.1390 >Fax 805.522.8557 >http://www.bighead.net/ >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > From: Garth Penglase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 02:42:27 +1000 > > To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: Comparing WO to Witango > > > > I think that once you get used to something, unless there are significant > > drawbacks (such as lack of cross-platform in Alex's case, (previous) lack > > of Java deployment etc.) with your current tools you stick with what you > > have invested the most time with. > >________________________________________________________________________ >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body
