From: Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>
Date: 2005-02-16T04:34:53+09:00
Subject: Re: [EVALUATION] - E01: The Java Failure - May Ruby Helps?

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:24:52 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis 
> <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
> 
>> Austin Ziegler wrote: [...]
>> 
>>>> [simple] how can I create objects. [simple] how can I make them
>>>> persistent. [simple] how can I create a generic GU [simple] how
>>>> can I create a generic Web GUI [simple] how can I update the
>>>> object model ....
>> [...]
>> 
>>> What do you mean by this? If you simply want to create a class 
>>> and then instances of the class, it's very simply:
>>> 
>>> class Foo ... # define your attributes and methods here[1] end
>>> 
>>> x = Foo.new
>> 
>> [...] I simply need to produce software.
> 
> Right. But the production of software is something that is very 
> dependent upon the problem space you are trying to use it in.

of course.

I've defined my needs in the presented document (essentially a form of
Model Driven Architecture (MDA)).

>> You have described many systems.
>> 
>> Java has hundreds, possibly thousands of it.
>> 
>> But you cannot produce software with those technologies, when you 
>> have the requirement "OOAD", "scalable", "embeddable", and some 
>> others that i've described (which essentially are nothing special).
>> 
> 
> Right. There are two words which you have that are (by and large) 
> contradictory: scalable and embeddable.[...]

It is not contradictory.

i'm asking that the design can be transformed:

"
# Initial design runs on local client.
# Ability to transform design to run on higher grade systems

     * High Load Systems (load balancing, clustering )
     * large scale OODBMS

# Ability to transform design to run on embedded devices.
"

> Rails is a highly scalable application framework.

ok

> Nitro appears to be a highly scalable application framework.

ok

> They're both web-oriented, which makes them very hard to use with
> non-web user interfaces.

ok.

This would mean: "requirements met, except local GUI"

> They're both database oriented, which makes them hard to use with
> non-database persistence. 

rembember:

I can contribute.

If not existent, I could e.g. write an persistency abstraction for the 
mentioned frameworks, thus others can plug-in persistence drivers.

> Rails performs very badly under some
> conditions (CGI environments), but performs as well or better than
> very expensive Java application frameworks when configured properly
> (FCGI environments, others).

ok

>> Isn't there any _bundle_ of those Ruby technologies that you 
>> listed, which are verified, which allow a simple software 
>> production, without the need of research & plumbing?
> 
> No. Then again, there's no such thing for Java, Python, C++, C, 
> Delphi, or anything else, either. 

This is false.

Commercial systems exist, mostly very expensive.

-

No such thing exist with the requirement "open-source".

I'm still wondering: which will be the first open-source-language 
community which will realizes this and bundles this package, at least 
with a partly grade.

> Smart software designers design 
> their software to the problem space and then generalise from there, 
> if they can.

I think you are over-generalising.

Personally, I prefere to use case-tools.

The problem is, that open-source fails to produce them:

http://lazaridis.com/core/product/case.html

> There is no software out there which you can simply wire together 
> into an application. You have to actually pick and choose based on 
> the needs of your current project.

Even if it is this way:

Pick & pack should be simpler.

> -austin

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com