<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A bit fed up with Web 2.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dempa.init5.net/2006/05/20/a-bit-fed-up-with-web-20/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dempa.init5.net/2006/05/20/a-bit-fed-up-with-web-20/</link>
	<description>Audiovisual Experiments</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:57:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jocke</title>
		<link>http://dempa.init5.net/2006/05/20/a-bit-fed-up-with-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-266</link>
		<dc:creator>Jocke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dempa.init5.net/2006/05/20/a-bit-fed-up-with-web-20/#comment-266</guid>
		<description>Hmmmm... I can entirely symphatize with Dempa - the buzz around W2.0 and RoR. The W2.0 part I'm completely fed up on too. Most of the so to say, W2.0 stuff still doesn't work on my PDA/Phone etc... which means, just like when DHTML was a buzzword, you'll have to write and maintain two different applications if you want to cover 98% of the users (however, most don't care about that perspective).

RoR on the other hand has taken a sweet spot in my heart. I've read the book, but I've not written anything because I don't have anything to write. My two main concerns at the moment are that RoR is initially only set up to include "one piece of logic" on one URL, if you want to change that you'll have to start going out of your way. I've already done that in the system on my site (http://jocke.selincite.com/) where I can have any number of "modules" on any page (even the same ones), I can create any path I want (as long as it'll fit into the DB), thanks to mod_rewrite. Unfortunately the underlying isn't as pretty as RoR, partially thanks to PHP's language constructs, and a great deal to lack of time; there's a lot of refactoring and a lot has changes since the start in 2002. 

Oh, and whilst RoR advocates "only one language" (to generate any other such as SQL, HTML, etc), my system generates an XML document that's transformed with XSL - that's just pretty and nothing, not even Ruby is going to change that. :)

To summarize; don't be so negative about new stuff just because it becomes popular - I'm fed up too, but I try to stay optimistic :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmmm&#8230; I can entirely symphatize with Dempa - the buzz around W2.0 and RoR. The W2.0 part I&#8217;m completely fed up on too. Most of the so to say, W2.0 stuff still doesn&#8217;t work on my PDA/Phone etc&#8230; which means, just like when DHTML was a buzzword, you&#8217;ll have to write and maintain two different applications if you want to cover 98% of the users (however, most don&#8217;t care about that perspective).</p>
<p>RoR on the other hand has taken a sweet spot in my heart. I&#8217;ve read the book, but I&#8217;ve not written anything because I don&#8217;t have anything to write. My two main concerns at the moment are that RoR is initially only set up to include &#8220;one piece of logic&#8221; on one URL, if you want to change that you&#8217;ll have to start going out of your way. I&#8217;ve already done that in the system on my site (http://jocke.selincite.com/) where I can have any number of &#8220;modules&#8221; on any page (even the same ones), I can create any path I want (as long as it&#8217;ll fit into the DB), thanks to mod_rewrite. Unfortunately the underlying isn&#8217;t as pretty as RoR, partially thanks to PHP&#8217;s language constructs, and a great deal to lack of time; there&#8217;s a lot of refactoring and a lot has changes since the start in 2002. </p>
<p>Oh, and whilst RoR advocates &#8220;only one language&#8221; (to generate any other such as SQL, HTML, etc), my system generates an XML document that&#8217;s transformed with XSL - that&#8217;s just pretty and nothing, not even Ruby is going to change that. :)</p>
<p>To summarize; don&#8217;t be so negative about new stuff just because it becomes popular - I&#8217;m fed up too, but I try to stay optimistic :P</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: markus</title>
		<link>http://dempa.init5.net/2006/05/20/a-bit-fed-up-with-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-194</link>
		<dc:creator>markus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 May 2006 18:20:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dempa.init5.net/2006/05/20/a-bit-fed-up-with-web-20/#comment-194</guid>
		<description>First of all I have to say that the intention of this comment is not to start some kind of flame war about what kind of programming languages or frameworks should be used to develop web applications. I just felt some kind of urge to comment this. I hope you don't mind. :)

I think Ruby on Rails is exactly what the web developer community needed. Unless you are a really skilled and disciplined programmer you will, at least in Perl and PHP, write pretty messy code. This is because there is no rules how you should develop applications. This is of course not a problem to skilled programmers who knows how to write applications after the MVC-model, but I have seen a lot of really messy code in my few years as a programmer. My first applications i wrote in PHP are so ugly that they are really hard to maintain. :)

What Ruby on Rails does is that it provides a well-structured base for you to work on. Well, J2EE and .NET does the same thing, but in my own opinion they both are too big and complicated to learn. I could go on and on about why you should choose RoR over J2EE, but don't worry; I won't. :) 

Anyway, I feel that there is place for all these 3 types of ways for a web developer. I would never write a simple script in RoR because it feels a bit overkill. To do this I would gladly choose either Perl or PHP. But if I had to make a larger application I would choose RoR since it gives you so much for free. And if I had to develop a great application, like a banking system or something in the same scale, together with, let's say, 20 co-workers I would choose Java (if I was the one who made that call).  

Hmm... I tried to make this comment short and concise, but I guess I failed. We have had a lot of discussions about this at work and after a lot of swings back and forth we have decided to re-build the current system (written in Perl) in Ruby on Rails. Management of course wanted to develop in J2EE (because they all are pointy haired and enjoys buzz words ;) ), but after a lot of pressure from us developers we made them change their minds. I guess they didn't want to hire a bunch of consultants with walls filled with different Java certificates. ;) 

 To summarize this: don't turn your back to the new technology!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First of all I have to say that the intention of this comment is not to start some kind of flame war about what kind of programming languages or frameworks should be used to develop web applications. I just felt some kind of urge to comment this. I hope you don&#8217;t mind. :)</p>
<p>I think Ruby on Rails is exactly what the web developer community needed. Unless you are a really skilled and disciplined programmer you will, at least in Perl and PHP, write pretty messy code. This is because there is no rules how you should develop applications. This is of course not a problem to skilled programmers who knows how to write applications after the MVC-model, but I have seen a lot of really messy code in my few years as a programmer. My first applications i wrote in PHP are so ugly that they are really hard to maintain. :)</p>
<p>What Ruby on Rails does is that it provides a well-structured base for you to work on. Well, J2EE and .NET does the same thing, but in my own opinion they both are too big and complicated to learn. I could go on and on about why you should choose RoR over J2EE, but don&#8217;t worry; I won&#8217;t. :) </p>
<p>Anyway, I feel that there is place for all these 3 types of ways for a web developer. I would never write a simple script in RoR because it feels a bit overkill. To do this I would gladly choose either Perl or PHP. But if I had to make a larger application I would choose RoR since it gives you so much for free. And if I had to develop a great application, like a banking system or something in the same scale, together with, let&#8217;s say, 20 co-workers I would choose Java (if I was the one who made that call).  </p>
<p>Hmm&#8230; I tried to make this comment short and concise, but I guess I failed. We have had a lot of discussions about this at work and after a lot of swings back and forth we have decided to re-build the current system (written in Perl) in Ruby on Rails. Management of course wanted to develop in J2EE (because they all are pointy haired and enjoys buzz words ;) ), but after a lot of pressure from us developers we made them change their minds. I guess they didn&#8217;t want to hire a bunch of consultants with walls filled with different Java certificates. ;) </p>
<p> To summarize this: don&#8217;t turn your back to the new technology!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
