Happily since we left Java a few years ago we haven't had to look
back. I tried Grails and Seam at their early stages and is not the fun
Ruby provides but they do the work in a much better way than Struts
for example. They have very different approaches but they both follow
DRY and COC.
My company today decided to ditch ruby development and to develop new web
applications only with Java or .net.
Current RoR applications will be migrated to Java.
Sigh. No more ruby for me (in office hours).
But anyway: are here some Java devs who may suggest some Java frameworks
similar to RoR? Maybe something that emulates Activerecord and is as
flexible, powerful and convenient to use as the ActionPack?
Because they like Groovy
It's a good language if the JVM is your only target, and it's still close enough to Java that there's not too much pain working with both.
I am being naive maybe, but I don't get the point of Grails. It's a
different programming language and it tries to mimic rails. So the only
thing it has of Java it's the JVM. So they had to completely rewrite rails
in Groovy. Why not use the real thing at this point? Or jruby?
Happily since we left Java a few years ago we haven't had to look
back. I tried Grails and Seam at their early stages and is not the fun
Ruby provides but they do the work in a much better way than Struts
for example. They have very different approaches but they both follow
DRY and COC.
How about TDD, MVC, ActiveRecord, and block closures?
I am being naive maybe, but I don't get the point of Grails. It's a
different programming language and it tries to mimic rails. So the only
thing it has of Java it's the JVM. So they had to completely rewrite rails
in Groovy. Why not use the real thing at this point? Or jruby?
Because they like Groovy
It's a good language if the JVM is your only target, and it's still close enough to Java that there's not too much pain working with both.
And they probably didn't have performance requirements -- Groovy is slow.
On 5 Jul 2008, at 19:02, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Eleanor McHugh wrote:
Because they like Groovy
It's a good language if the JVM is your only target, and it's still close enough to Java that there's not too much pain working with both.
And they probably didn't have performance requirements -- Groovy is slow.
