Re: Competition is not ALWAYS good

SB> We have misunderstanding of the view. There is a nice book called
SB> crossing the chasm, Erick Sink wrote about it at
http://www.ericsink.com/Act_Your_Age.html .
SB> Paraphrasing the basic idea fallows a short explanation. Basically
SB> there are 5 types of peoploe in in technology acception.
SB> Innovators, Early adapters, pragmatists, conservatives & laggards.

you see web framework as a must-use product.
but many [web] applications simply do not need any sophisticated web
frameworks at all -- they can just be built on top of very basic libraries,
e.g. mod_lisp, or even without them.

for example, consider PHP. standard PHP package does not include any
framework -- it just supports integration with Apache, that is roughly
equivalent to mod_lisp.
yet ordinary people (not some uber-cool hackers or innovators) can implement
their applications in bare PHP -- and be quite successful with this.

moreover, ones who use frameworks often end up with over-engineered
solutions and are damn hard to maintain.

of course, if you build application that is very similar to other
applications you've written, it's better to abstract common things, and
create so-called framework.
but often these applications are too different, and abstracting things from
them leads to overly-complex solutions.

??>> in other words, you have some "religious" preconceptions about
??>> different operating systems and Lisp implementations, and you care
??>> more about following your preconceptions rather than getting things
??>> done in most effective way.

SB> That you are wrong I like sbcl and use it with Ubuntu.But if expecting
SB> code to be portable across at least allegro/lw/sbcl and windows/linux
SB> (I don't have access to Mac) is a religion then yes I am religious.

even religious people have some reasoning behind their beliefs.

but what's your reason to require portability for webapp?

unlike desktop application, web applications are typically deployed in
controlled fashion -- people pick a server for application and configure it
according to application demands.
so for people who actually want application up and running portability has
very little value.
and it's quite adequate decision to sacrifice portability for, say,
features, or just cut development time on it.

it's another question if you're developing tools rather than application
itself -- tools might be required to play with other tools.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Competition is not ALWAYS good
    ... you see web framework as a must-use product. ... for example, consider PHP. ... their applications in bare PHP -- and be quite successful with this. ... Quality of the code is very often correlated with portability, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Universal School Choice - A Jewish position
    ... Micha doesn't make the distinction between "science" ... the framework. ... Religion, OTOH, is one component of "everything else," the world of things ... Religion.proof claims it's asserting "absolute truth," while ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: .Net Framework 2.0
    ... We just found in our same legacy application (because focus is currently on ... When the Framework went from 1.0 to 1.1 in this ... and implement wrappers for our .Net components that create custom App ... have the problem that when our applications run under 3rd party vendor host ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.clr)
  • thoughts on single sign-on portal?
    ... The framework works with Zend ... allows data integration between legacy and new applications. ... recently, all modules/applications I have added are custom developed, ... integrates COTS applications. ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: 3.5 Deployment Question
    ... Thanks David ... ... We had several standing applications targeting .NET 2.0--they didn't change ... You are correct--3.0/3.5 are simply additions to the framework... ... the ASP.NET site also contains the web service applications ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
Loading