another reason Rails gets market share and Seaside doesn't
Locked
123
123
another reason Rails gets market share and Seaside doesn't
 
|
The bulk of my development work has been in Java, Smalltalk and Ruby
(~60%, ~10%, ~30% respectively). I have done quite a bit of development in Rails. With this background, I would like to offer one more reason why I think Rails gets more market-share than our beloved Seaside. Hypothesis: many developers get sucked into Rails and the RailsWay simply because it's so easy to prototype new apps or get quick and dirty solutions running. Most of my Rails apps have started their lives as quick-n-dirty-solutions-to-a-very-present-problem. Rails makes it very easy to do that. Sadly, Seaside doesn't. With the work Alan Knight is putting into Glorp, and the ActiveRecord equivalent for it, this may get easier. Like it or not, there are a lot of data sets out there in relational databases that need front ends -- Seaside falls down here just a little. I may be branded a heretic here, but for those types of apps I will most likely continue using Rails. For my personal apps (or the apps that don't have such tight deadlines) I will continue using Seaside. I don't really think file-based vs. image-based is the big issue. Developers are (by and far) a lazy lot and they want solutions that help them to do more with less. Of course, we can argue that the image-based development of Smalltalk really does do that, but the reality is that it doesn't /feel/ like that when you start using Seaside without having a significant amount of development experience in Smalltalk already. Typing the arguments on a web page doesn't sell it -- people have to feel it. Conclusion: I think that the less barriers we have to the lazy lot, the more they will consider using Seaside for their small projects. Once you get them doing that they will be more likely to choose Seaside for their larger projects. -- Jason Rogers "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20 _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share and Seaside doesn't
|
|
I don't understand what you think the barrier is here. Is it that you mean that it is relatively difficult to create a web interface to an existing SQL database?
On 7/17/07,
Jason Rogers <[hidden email]> wrote: The bulk of my development work has been in Java, Smalltalk and Ruby _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share and Seaside doesn't
|
|
Sorry, I thought that was obvious...
Yes, that is one of the barriers. Try using Rails on an existing database (even if it doesn't match the Rails assumptions, you can override how it does things). You will see that the ActiveRecord is a very powerful concept. Try writing complex SQL joins in Seaside and then in Rails -- you will immediately see the difference. Following is how you query for a Project model and get the associated Tasks, Concerns and StakeHolders for that particular project. In Rails: Project.find(:first, :includes => [:tasks, :concerns, :stake_holders], :conditions => ['name like ?', params[:project_name]]) - OR even easier - Project.find_by_name(params[:project_name], :includes => [:tasks, :concerns, :stake_holders]) In Seaside: <I don't want to write out all the different ways to do the joins/associations for all of the databases that are supported out-of-the-box by Rails> I then might say that another ease-of-use Rails has going for it is the auto-communication between controllers and views -- but that would suppose that I like the templating way of doing things. I don't -- but if I have to use it Rails sure does make it easy to do. I really think the Rails guys hit on something powerful (from a market-share point of view) when they decided on "convention over configuration". Jason On 7/17/07, Marcin Tustin <[hidden email]> wrote: > I don't understand what you think the barrier is here. Is it that you mean > that it is relatively difficult to create a web interface to an existing SQL > database? > > > On 7/17/07, Jason Rogers <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > The bulk of my development work has been in Java, Smalltalk and Ruby > > (~60%, ~10%, ~30% respectively). I have done quite a bit of > > development in Rails. With this background, I would like to offer one > > more reason why I think Rails gets more market-share than our beloved > > Seaside. > > > > Hypothesis: many developers get sucked into Rails and the RailsWay > > simply because it's so easy to prototype new apps or get quick and > > dirty solutions running. > > > > Most of my Rails apps have started their lives as > > quick-n-dirty-solutions-to-a-very-present-problem. Rails > makes it > > very easy to do that. Sadly, Seaside doesn't. With the work Alan > > Knight is putting into Glorp, and the ActiveRecord equivalent for it, > > this may get easier. Like it or not, there are a lot of data sets out > > there in relational databases that need front ends -- Seaside falls > > down here just a little. > > > > I may be branded a heretic here, but for those types of apps I will > > most likely continue using Rails. For my personal apps (or the apps > > that don't have such tight deadlines) I will continue using Seaside. > > > > I don't really think file-based vs. image-based is the big issue. > > Developers are (by and far) a lazy lot and they want solutions that > > help them to do more with less. Of course, we can argue that the > > image-based development of Smalltalk really does do that, but the > > reality is that it doesn't /feel/ like that when you start using > > Seaside without having a significant amount of development experience > > in Smalltalk already. Typing the arguments on a web page doesn't sell > > it -- people have to feel it. > > > > Conclusion: I think that the less barriers we have to the lazy lot, > > the more they will consider using Seaside for their small projects. > > Once you get them doing that they will be more likely to choose > > Seaside for their larger projects. > > > > -- > > Jason Rogers > > > > "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; > > yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life > > which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of > > the Son of God, who loved me, and gave > > himself for me." > > Galatians 2:20 > > _______________________________________________ > > Seaside mailing list > > [hidden email] > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > -- Jason Rogers "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20 _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share and Seaside doesn't
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Rogers-4
> The bulk of my development work has been in Java, Smalltalk and Ruby
> (~60%, ~10%, ~30% respectively). I have done quite a bit of > development in Rails. With this background, I would like to offer one > more reason why I think Rails gets more market-share than our beloved > Seaside. > > Hypothesis: many developers get sucked into Rails and the RailsWay > simply because it's so easy to prototype new apps or get quick and > dirty solutions running. I think this is true. I'm pretty sure ease of adoption is a priority for Rails core. But I don't think this is necessarily such a problem. Rails apps, because of the incredibly gentle learning curve, are kind of a magnet for bad code. The goal isn't to take over the world or whatever. Just because lots of people are into Rails doesn't necessarily mean your Rails experience will be a good one. -- Giles Bowkett Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
RE: another reason Rails gets market share and Seasidedoesn't
|
|
>
> I think this is true. I'm pretty sure ease of adoption is a > priority for Rails core. But I don't think this is > necessarily such a problem. > Rails apps, because of the incredibly gentle learning curve, > are kind of a magnet for bad code. The goal isn't to take > over the world or whatever. Just because lots of people are > into Rails doesn't necessarily mean your Rails experience > will be a good one. > > -- > Giles Bowkett Nor to we really want to attract total beginners to Seaside, you have to at least have a decent understanding of object oriented programming and Smalltalk to make a decent go at Seaside, and that rules out a lot of programmers. Let the total beginners cut their teeth on Rails, and learn a little OO in a more traditional framework that doesn't tell them everything they know is wrong. Seaside is more attractive for those who've figured out something is wrong with traditional web development and are looking for something better. Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share and Seaside doesn't
|
|
In reply to this post by Giles Bowkett
Hi, I agree with the point that Giles makes in response to the comments by Jason. Also, I would like to say that market share doesn't mean anything. For example, more people are using PHP than Rails. Also, more people are using Java than Rails. Please don't get me wrong but I do like Rails as well as its community but don't try to pit Seaside against Rails. It's a different framework for building web applications. One of the prerequisites of Seaside development is to be fairly comfortable with Smalltalk. Also, one needs to be comfortable with Ruby to be proficient at Rails. Next, agile developer should be a part of the solution instead a part of the problem. Thus, in the open-source community, if something doesn't exist, you build it and/or assist in its implementation. For example, Alan Knight has built GLORP and is also working on an ActiveRecord implementation. Seaside is a community effort and it should be treated as such. Jason, what are you doing to provide support to Seaside instead of pointing out its shortcomings in comparison to Rails? I'm sure that there's a list of enhancements that need developers to implement.
-Conrad
On 7/17/07, Giles Bowkett <[hidden email]> wrote: > The bulk of my development work has been in Java, Smalltalk and Ruby _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share and Seaside doesn't
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Rogers-4
I agree with you.
So may be a dirty solution based on magritte would really help. I have a name for it Beach and even a logo but no code :) Stef On 17 juil. 07, at 14:28, Jason Rogers wrote: > The bulk of my development work has been in Java, Smalltalk and Ruby > (~60%, ~10%, ~30% respectively). I have done quite a bit of > development in Rails. With this background, I would like to offer one > more reason why I think Rails gets more market-share than our beloved > Seaside. > > Hypothesis: many developers get sucked into Rails and the RailsWay > simply because it's so easy to prototype new apps or get quick and > dirty solutions running. > > Most of my Rails apps have started their lives as > quick-n-dirty-solutions-to-a-very-present-problem. Rails makes it > very easy to do that. Sadly, Seaside doesn't. With the work Alan > Knight is putting into Glorp, and the ActiveRecord equivalent for it, > this may get easier. Like it or not, there are a lot of data sets out > there in relational databases that need front ends -- Seaside falls > down here just a little. > > I may be branded a heretic here, but for those types of apps I will > most likely continue using Rails. For my personal apps (or the apps > that don't have such tight deadlines) I will continue using Seaside. > > I don't really think file-based vs. image-based is the big issue. > Developers are (by and far) a lazy lot and they want solutions that > help them to do more with less. Of course, we can argue that the > image-based development of Smalltalk really does do that, but the > reality is that it doesn't /feel/ like that when you start using > Seaside without having a significant amount of development experience > in Smalltalk already. Typing the arguments on a web page doesn't sell > it -- people have to feel it. > > Conclusion: I think that the less barriers we have to the lazy lot, > the more they will consider using Seaside for their small projects. > Once you get them doing that they will be more likely to choose > Seaside for their larger projects. > > -- > Jason Rogers > > "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; > yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life > which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of > the Son of God, who loved me, and gave > himself for me." > Galatians 2:20 > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
stephane ducasse a écrit :
> I agree with you. > So may be a dirty solution based on magritte would really help. > I have a name for it Beach and even a logo but no code :) > > Stef > > Ramon adressed that some months ago... not sure it's dirty tough ;) http://www.squeaksource.com/MagritteGlorp/ http://onsmalltalk.com/programming/smalltalk/a-smalltalk-activerecord-using-magritte-seaside-and-glorp/ probably not up to date but this is probably one way to go... Cédrick _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share and Seasidedoesn't
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
My one comment is that a large base of users past a certain threshold attracts more quality developers building useful libraries, and for those of us in employment, creates buzz that makes it easier for management to accept the technology. Whether that's worth pursuing is a matter of preference.
On 7/18/07, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote: > _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share and Seaside doesn't
|
|
In reply to this post by Conrad Taylor
I probably should have prefaced my subject with a "was: [Seaside]
[ANN] new Seaside homepage" because my comments were spurred by the discussion there. I am not interested in "winning souls to Seaside", nor am I pitting Seaside against Rails or any other mode of doing things. My comments are mere observations -- not attacks. Personally, I would like to use Seaside at work more, but the current state of things won't allow it. You ask what am I doing to support Seaside? I use it, which (if nothing else) is good enough. I create patches when I find bugs (which usually get fixed before I get around to submitting them). I give demos on Seaside to anyone who will listen in order to pique their curiosity. I am currently writing an article on Seaside for a Linux magazine. I am also hoping to plan a Smalltalk conference on the East Coast with another member of this list. So I am doing things. I don't blame you for taking offense (or whatever you call it) at my comments -- I didn't preface them well. On 7/17/07, Conrad Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, I agree with the point that Giles makes in response to the comments by > Jason. Also, I would like to say that market share doesn't mean anything. > For example, more people are using PHP than Rails. Also, more people are > using Java than Rails. Please don't get me wrong but I do like Rails as > well as its community but don't try to pit Seaside against Rails. It's a > different framework for building web applications. One of the prerequisites > of Seaside development is to be fairly comfortable with Smalltalk. Also, > one needs to be comfortable with Ruby to be proficient at Rails. Next, > agile developer should be a part of the solution instead a part of the > problem. Thus, in the open-source community, if something doesn't exist, > you build it and/or assist in its implementation. For example, Alan Knight > has built GLORP and is also working on an ActiveRecord implementation. > Seaside is a community effort and it should be treated as such. Jason, > what are you doing to provide support to Seaside instead of pointing out its > shortcomings in comparison to Rails? I'm sure that there's a list of > enhancements that need developers to implement. > -Conrad > > > On 7/17/07, Giles Bowkett <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > The bulk of my development work has been in Java, Smalltalk and Ruby > > > (~60%, ~10%, ~30% respectively). I have done quite a bit of > > > development in Rails. With this background, I would like to offer one > > > more reason why I think Rails gets more market-share than our beloved > > > Seaside. > > > > > > Hypothesis: many developers get sucked into Rails and the RailsWay > > > simply because it's so easy to prototype new apps or get quick and > > > dirty solutions running. > > > > I think this is true. I'm pretty sure ease of adoption is a priority > > for Rails core. But I don't think this is necessarily such a problem. > > Rails apps, because of the incredibly gentle learning curve, are kind > > of a magnet for bad code. The goal isn't to take over the world or > > whatever. Just because lots of people are into Rails doesn't > > necessarily mean your Rails experience will be a good one. > > > > -- > > Giles Bowkett > > > > Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com > > Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org > > _______________________________________________ > > Seaside mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > -- Jason Rogers "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20 _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share and Seasidedoesn't
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
On 7/17/07, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Nor to we really want to attract total beginners to Seaside, you have to at > least have a decent understanding of object oriented programming and > Smalltalk to make a decent go at Seaside, and that rules out a lot of > programmers. > > Let the total beginners cut their teeth on Rails, and learn a little OO in a > more traditional framework that doesn't tell them everything they know is > wrong. Thanks Ramon. I agree with your comments, but I wasn't brave enough to say "forget all the newbies". Having said that though, there are a lot of newbies on this list who are interested. Your blog and other tutorials go a long way to helping them get into it, and hopefully see the light. -- Jason Rogers "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20 _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
RE: another reason Rails gets market share andSeasidedoesn't
|
|
> Thanks Ramon. I agree with your comments, but I wasn't brave
> enough to say "forget all the newbies". Having said that > though, there are a lot of newbies on this list who are > interested. Your blog and other tutorials go a long way to > helping them get into it, and hopefully see the light. > > -- > Jason Rogers I'm not totally saying forget the newbies, I just want to point out that not every framework has to be targeted at "newbie programmers". Someone has to cater to more experienced programmers who actually care about silly things like *flexible* architecture and plugability rather than just how fast can I puke out a table onto a screen. Programming well isn't easy, and it's almost a disservice to make things look too easy and trick people into thinking they can do something they really shouldn't be. Anyone who doesn't instantly see the intrinsic value of Seaside probably isn't ready for it. They haven't worked in enough other frameworks to really feel the pain that makes Seaside so attractive. I don't want to scare anyone away, but from my experience, Seaside isn't a framework for beginners, PHP owns that market. Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share andSeasidedoesn't
|
|
I'm not sure I agree with this. I'm a Seaside newbie, but I'm also a *web
application* newbie. The commercial web app that I'm developing is my very first web app of any kind! Does this mean that I should be writing it in PHP or Java (the conventional, mainstream route)? Of course not! The learning curve for a PHP or Java web framework is no less severe than for Seaside. I've looked at CakePHP and Java Tapestry, for example, and they send shivers up my spine. (Note that I am a veteran software developer. I've been writing software for over 20 years, mostly device drivers in C. Recently, I did a little bit of work with C# and .NET.) So if I'm going to climb a learning curve, it might as well be Seaside's. At least I recognize the enormous advantages of this framework. (Twenty years of software engineering experience tend to confer a wee bit of wisdom. :-) ) Having said all that, I must confess I find many things about Seaside/Smalltalk puzzling. So you will forgive me if I ask stupid questions from time to time... :-) Regards, Richard On 7/18/07 12:10 PM, "Ramon Leon" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Thanks Ramon. I agree with your comments, but I wasn't brave >> enough to say "forget all the newbies". Having said that >> though, there are a lot of newbies on this list who are >> interested. Your blog and other tutorials go a long way to >> helping them get into it, and hopefully see the light. >> >> -- >> Jason Rogers > > I'm not totally saying forget the newbies, I just want to point out that not > every framework has to be targeted at "newbie programmers". Someone has to > cater to more experienced programmers who actually care about silly things > like *flexible* architecture and plugability rather than just how fast can I > puke out a table onto a screen. > > Programming well isn't easy, and it's almost a disservice to make things > look too easy and trick people into thinking they can do something they > really shouldn't be. Anyone who doesn't instantly see the intrinsic value > of Seaside probably isn't ready for it. They haven't worked in enough other > frameworks to really feel the pain that makes Seaside so attractive. I > don't want to scare anyone away, but from my experience, Seaside isn't a > framework for beginners, PHP owns that market. > > Ramon Leon > http://onsmalltalk.com > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
RE: another reason Rails gets market share andSeasidedoesn't
|
|
> (Note that I am a veteran software developer. I've been > writing software for over 20 years, mostly device drivers in > C. Recently, I did a little bit of work with C# and .NET.) Then you're not a newbie programmer, hence not who I was referring to. Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share andSeasidedoesn't
|
|
Seaside may not be for beginners, but that does not mean you shouldn't try
to lower the entry barrier or minimize the learning curve. Even experienced developers may have a hard time if they come from a Java or C background. Not everyone in the world is an object-oriented guru. Seaside should not take an "elitist" position (an undesirable word I pointed out in the "new Seaside homepage" thread). It should be accessible to the broadest web development community. It should share the same aspirations as Ruby on Rails, which is trying vigorously to conquer the world (and apparently making huge progress!). Richard On 7/18/07 12:45 PM, "Ramon Leon" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> (Note that I am a veteran software developer. I've been >> writing software for over 20 years, mostly device drivers in >> C. Recently, I did a little bit of work with C# and .NET.) > > Then you're not a newbie programmer, hence not who I was referring to. > > Ramon Leon > http://onsmalltalk.com > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
RE: another reason Rails gets market share andSeasidedoesn't
|
|
> Seaside may not be for beginners, but that does not mean you
> shouldn't try to lower the entry barrier or minimize the > learning curve. Even experienced developers may have a hard > time if they come from a Java or C background. > Not everyone in the world is an object-oriented guru. Maybe not, but if you aren't pretty good with OO, Smalltalk really isn't the language you want to be in. > Seaside should not take an "elitist" position (an undesirable > word I pointed out in the "new Seaside homepage" thread). It > should be accessible to the broadest web development > community. There's nothing elitist about recognizing the simple truth that beginners and experienced programmers want different things from a framework and targeting both is very difficult. > It should share the same aspirations as Ruby on > Rails, which is trying vigorously to conquer the world (and > apparently making huge progress!). > > Richard I have to disagree, if I shared those aspirations, I'd use Rails. Seaside is targeting a different market than Rails, and it's doing pretty well as is. The community only needs to be large enough to ensure its survival, it hardly needs to conquer the world. Bringing a framework to the *masses* would involve dumbing it down, something I'd rather not see. A good example from the Rails community is scaffolding, a feature even DHH regrets including. It's the wrong approach but newbies flock to it, and abuse it, and then complain when *scaffolding* isn't fit for production. Well duh, that's why it's called scaffolding. Yet, it's probably the number one thing that makes people try rails. Without scaffolding, Rails wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is, but it'd probably be a better framework, with a community less likely to shoot themselves in the foot with bad code. Templates and scaffolding are features that makes things easier for the beginner, but they're the wrong approach because they encourage copy and paste programming. Reusable components are a much better approach but customizing them usually requires subclassing and overriding and makes for a much less effective 15 minute screencast demo. Making a framework easier to use doesn't automatically make it better. Convention over configuration is nice, if you agree with the conventions, but I'd rather work in a framework like Seaside that allows me to develop and use my own conventions, and more importantly, gives me the ability to reuse them in every project because it has *real* components. Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
I agree with Ramon 100% on this.
I made my way across the spectrum from PHP->Python->Ruby->Smalltalk/Seaside over a 6 year timespan. It was the reduction of pain and increase in pleasure that motivated my movement each time. And, I don't think there's anything more pleasing and painless than Seaside at this time. Couldn't newbieizing Seaside detract from qualities that attract more advanced programmers, or at least make it less "fit-for-purpose" for the advanced? Chad On 7/18/07, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Thanks Ramon. I agree with your comments, but I wasn't brave > > enough to say "forget all the newbies". Having said that > > though, there are a lot of newbies on this list who are > > interested. Your blog and other tutorials go a long way to > > helping them get into it, and hopefully see the light. > > > > -- > > Jason Rogers > > I'm not totally saying forget the newbies, I just want to point out that not > every framework has to be targeted at "newbie programmers". Someone has to > cater to more experienced programmers who actually care about silly things > like *flexible* architecture and plugability rather than just how fast can I > puke out a table onto a screen. > > Programming well isn't easy, and it's almost a disservice to make things > look too easy and trick people into thinking they can do something they > really shouldn't be. Anyone who doesn't instantly see the intrinsic value > of Seaside probably isn't ready for it. They haven't worked in enough other > frameworks to really feel the pain that makes Seaside so attractive. I > don't want to scare anyone away, but from my experience, Seaside isn't a > framework for beginners, PHP owns that market. > > Ramon Leon > http://onsmalltalk.com > > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > -- Chad Nantais http://myspace.com/chadnantais _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share andSeasidedoesn't
|
|
I disagree that you wouldn't want to do Smalltalk if you don't know
OO. Smalltalk is a great first OO language (taught lots on the job). If anything, Smalltalk is distasteful to others who've used other languages and maybe never really got objects (seen it over and over teaching OO to people who've learned it on their own). Seaside appeals to me in the same way VA Java's (less elegant) web framework appealed to me. It makes web development more like traditional OO development. This is great if you like traditional OO development. If you like PHP or Rails or servlets, that's cool too. It's just different. On 7/18/07, Chad Nantais <[hidden email]> wrote: > I agree with Ramon 100% on this. > > I made my way across the spectrum from > PHP->Python->Ruby->Smalltalk/Seaside over a 6 year timespan. It was > the reduction of pain and increase in pleasure that motivated my > movement each time. And, I don't think there's anything more pleasing > and painless than Seaside at this time. > > Couldn't newbieizing Seaside detract from qualities that attract more > advanced programmers, or at least make it less "fit-for-purpose" for > the advanced? > > Chad > > On 7/18/07, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Thanks Ramon. I agree with your comments, but I wasn't brave > > > enough to say "forget all the newbies". Having said that > > > though, there are a lot of newbies on this list who are > > > interested. Your blog and other tutorials go a long way to > > > helping them get into it, and hopefully see the light. > > > > > > -- > > > Jason Rogers > > > > I'm not totally saying forget the newbies, I just want to point out that not > > every framework has to be targeted at "newbie programmers". Someone has to > > cater to more experienced programmers who actually care about silly things > > like *flexible* architecture and plugability rather than just how fast can I > > puke out a table onto a screen. > > > > Programming well isn't easy, and it's almost a disservice to make things > > look too easy and trick people into thinking they can do something they > > really shouldn't be. Anyone who doesn't instantly see the intrinsic value > > of Seaside probably isn't ready for it. They haven't worked in enough other > > frameworks to really feel the pain that makes Seaside so attractive. I > > don't want to scare anyone away, but from my experience, Seaside isn't a > > framework for beginners, PHP owns that market. > > > > Ramon Leon > > http://onsmalltalk.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Seaside mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > > -- > Chad Nantais > > http://myspace.com/chadnantais > _______________________________________________ > Seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
>There's nothing elitist about recognizing the simple truth that beginners
>and experienced programmers want different things from a framework and >targeting both is very difficult. Actually I don´t think it is THAT difficult. Everyone wants to have good time writing software and wants to produce code structures that are stable and to what's intended. Newbies just don´t have a clue how to do it. I think both experts and beginners would admire a framework that is logical in itself and has a layout that enforces some basic principles that help beginners to go the right way building an app and experts to do things faster. At least I, for myself, don´t fall in love with a framework because it is a pro-framework but only if it "feels" good to work with every day. Take a look at SubSonic for example. It is dead simple, also uses convention over config and it is so damn easy to produce high quality code with it. There are tons of .NET ORM Mappers on the market that generate tons of expert classes, have GUIs and templates but still the only one that works right out of the box and is pure fun to work with is SubSonic. >Convention over configuration is nice, if you agree with the conventions, >but I'd rather work in a framework like Seaside that allows me to develop >and use my own conventions, and more importantly, gives me the ability to >reuse them in every project because it has *real* components. But Convention over Configuration is not about "Go this way or go away". It just gives you what you need in 80% of your projects. If you need something different THAN you start configuring. So that is a big difference for me. All the best, Elmar _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: another reason Rails gets market share andSeasidedoesn't
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
On 7/18/07 1:35 PM, "Ramon Leon" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Seaside may not be for beginners, but that does not mean you >> shouldn't try to lower the entry barrier or minimize the >> learning curve. Even experienced developers may have a hard >> time if they come from a Java or C background. >> Not everyone in the world is an object-oriented guru. > > Maybe not, but if you aren't pretty good with OO, Smalltalk really isn't the > language you want to be in. With all due respect (and I *do* respect you enormously!), Smalltalk is a great language with which to learn OOP. I was briefly introduced to C# and I didn't like it. Smalltalk is so much more elegant. You shouldn't have to be an OOP expert before using Smalltalk. > >> Seaside should not take an "elitist" position (an undesirable >> word I pointed out in the "new Seaside homepage" thread). It >> should be accessible to the broadest web development >> community. > > There's nothing elitist about recognizing the simple truth that beginners > and experienced programmers want different things from a framework and > targeting both is very difficult. You are not understanding me correctly. You should not dumb down a framework for beginners. Seaside *ought* to be a power tool. All I'm saying is, lower the entry barrier--minimize the learning curve--with accurate, up-to-date tutorials based on non-trivial, full-fledged web applications. Provide great documentation. *Streamline* the learning curve for beginners (even beginners who have years of Java experience). >From what I've seen of Seaside so far, there is no reason whatsoever its power can't be made more accessible to the "masses." > >> It should share the same aspirations as Ruby on >> Rails, which is trying vigorously to conquer the world (and >> apparently making huge progress!). >> >> Richard > > I have to disagree, if I shared those aspirations, I'd use Rails. Seaside > is targeting a different market than Rails, and it's doing pretty well as > is. The community only needs to be large enough to ensure its survival, it > hardly needs to conquer the world. I certainly do not share this view. There's nothing wrong with being a niche player, but I have greater hopes for Seaside. > Bringing a framework to the *masses* > would involve dumbing it down... Not true at all. > > A good example from the Rails community is scaffolding, a feature even DHH > regrets including. It's the wrong approach but newbies flock to it, and > abuse it, and then complain when *scaffolding* isn't fit for production. > Well duh, that's why it's called scaffolding. Yet, it's probably the number > one thing that makes people try rails. Without scaffolding, Rails wouldn't > be nearly as popular as it is, but it'd probably be a better framework, with > a community less likely to shoot themselves in the foot with bad code. > > Templates and scaffolding are features that makes things easier for the > beginner, but they're the wrong approach because they encourage copy and > paste programming. Reusable components are a much better approach but > customizing them usually requires subclassing and overriding and makes for a > much less effective 15 minute screencast demo. Making a framework easier to > use doesn't automatically make it better. Absolutely right! Don't offer scaffolding and templates! Don't dumb down the framework. The framework itself doesn't have to be easier to use--just the infrastructure support such as documentation, tutorials, etc. (For example, it's a pain searching the Seaside archives for specific topics.) Lower the barrier to entry. But Seaside can *still* aspire to greatness. Regards, Richard _______________________________________________ Seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
«
Return to Seaside General
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |