From: "James Britt (rubydev)" <james@...>
Date: 2002-02-05T10:59:30+09:00
Subject: RE: Terminology (was: Soap4r/Webrick question)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dave@thomases.com [mailto:dave@thomases.com]On Behalf Of Dave
> " JamesBritt" <james@jamesbritt.com> writes:
> > I understand that using the term "servlet" conveys some information
> > about what the Webrick code is intended to do, but it sounds like
> > it's an effort to get Ruby to keep up with Java.  The truth is (at
> > least in this case) Ruby makes the task easier than does Java;
> > borrowing Java-jargon seems discrediting to Ruby.
> 
> I have to admit I'm not a web programmer, so my view is not
> particularly representative, but until you posted this there was never
> any connection in my mind between the WEBrick use of 'servlet' and
> Java. Now, of course, I've been corrupted, and the link will be
> forever there :)

My deepest apologies. :)  


> 
> In reality, I'm not sure this is a big deal. If we say "WEBrick
> servlet" to a Java programmer, we're giving them a pretty good initial
> picture of some functionality (although they'd be blown away by the
> flexibility). If we say it to a non-Java programmer, we'd have to
> explain that it's a away of associating code invocation with a
> subtree on an HTTP server. Either way, there doesn't seem to be too
> much harm done.

True, expect if the Java programmer, when told of a Ruby servlet,
infers additonal "features" that are present in Java, but not Ruby.

> 
> We _could_ invent new jargon. I wonder if that would communicate
> better than using the existing terms as a metaphor?

The jargon model seems to be <foo>let, such as applet, craplet, servlet.
(I think there's also a scriptlet thingy for Java, which came after Microsoft's
use of the term to refer to particular types of IE-based JavaScript modules. )

And it's a pretty good neologism format.  I was trying to think of a similar 
mechanism for "Rubylets"  Such as appending "ite" to things (as one sees 
"fenite" or "phyllite" in mineralogy), though "servite" doesn't quite do it for me.  
(Maybe  "servzoite", or "servoid",  or "servlidene"... )

However, in such a case, one could say, "Oh, this is a servite; it's
like a servlet in Java, but nicer/faster/easier to maintain."

Then we could swipe, er, borrow all the Java jargon we like, and
Rubify the terms.

Of course, before that happens, we would need to choose the magic suffix, 
which would require a long debate like the one over the Ruby mascot. :)

BTW, is there a Japanese equivalent to the "-let" suffix? 


James (being pedantic)

> 
> 
> Dave
> 
>