Posted by Curt Hibbs
Sat, 01 Oct 2005 07:00:00 GMT
Tim O’Reilly just posted the clearest and most concise definition of Web 2.0 that I have seen:
Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an “architecture of participation,” and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.
Posted in technology | no comments
Posted by Curt Hibbs
Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:00:00 GMT
IBM just released a major update to its Reflexive User Interface Builder for constructing and rendering graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for AWT, Swing, and SWT. What caught my eye was that it makes use of Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP):
Version 1.2 includes four Eclipse plug-ins that fully integrate RIB into the Eclipse environment. RIB also has introduced aspect-oriented programming techniques in order to automatically and non-invasively validate Java GUI-based applications, including JVM-based executables such as the Eclipse workbench itself.
You’ll have to dig into their white paper to understand what they mean by GUI validation (its not testing), but it made me wonder if this technique could also be used for GUI testing GUIs—something that has always been difficult.
Its something to think about…
Posted in software development | no comments
Posted by Curt Hibbs
Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:00:00 GMT
Via OSNews I just read an article by Bruce Tate explaining why Ruby is better suited to lightweight development than Java.
The Java™ programming language is powerful, but it has significant limitations for lightweight development. For certain problems, other programming languages such as Ruby may lead to better productivity. This article shows you what’s important for productivity in an application’s language.
This article covers some of the same ground as Bruce’s recent book Beyond Java.
Posted in rails, ruby | no comments
Posted by Curt Hibbs
Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:00:00 GMT
Like most everything in life, conventional wisdom is a double-edged sword that has both good and bad sides. On the plus side its a great time saver, helping us to avoid making the same mistakes over and over. On the negative side it can stifle creativity and innovation.
True wisdom, on the other hand, is the ability to decide when a piece of conventional wisdom applies, and when it does not. I’m always interested in the kind of knowledge and experience that lets me increase my quota of true wisdom.
So, it is in this spirit that I recommend Kevin Barne’s little piece titled Three reasons to reinvent the wheel.
I get so tired of the worn out expression, “let’s not re-invent the wheel.” It’s used as a conversation stopper to inform you that you are straying from the well worn path of software sanity. There is no mention that this well worn path now employs nearly two million people to write what are essentially the same CRUD applications that were written on mainframes in the 1970s. It is a statement that life is good and you should rejoin the flower people on the primrose path to happiness. So, here is my answer, the three reasons you should reinvent the wheel.
His three reasons are:
- The wheel sucks
- You don’t understand wheels
- They don’t sell wheels at the Kwik-E Mart
Go read his posting for the details.
Posted in software development | no comments
Posted by Curt Hibbs
Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:00:00 GMT
Go ahead, admit it… you really want to know whether Ruby is better than Java (or Perl, or C#, or… you-name-it). Pragmatic Programmer Dave Thomas has the answer for us: no. Of course he also says the answer to “is Java better than Ruby” is no as well. But, you already knew that didn’t you?
My reason for bringing this to your attention is that Dave is planning to post a series of articles, each one addressing one of the hot-button issues that always come up when people want to compare Ruby with other programming languages.
This is important, because Dave is a clear thinker whose opinions I trust. He has a way of cutting through the FUD and addressing the issues with - dare I say - pragmatic fervor.
The first post addresses the issue of performance. Its definitely worth reading, and I’m looking forward to the future installments.
Posted in ruby | no comments
Posted by Curt Hibbs
Fri, 09 Sep 2005 07:00:00 GMT
Pragmatic Programmer Dave Thomas gives us a characteristically pragmatic answer to this question.
So when people ask “should I be using Rails instead of Java?”, the answer has to be “not exclusively: you’re likely to want to use Rails as well as Java.” Why? Because I’m a firm believer in having a bag of tools at your disposal, tools that you know how and—most importantly—when to use. When Rails is appropriate, you’re going to be hard pressed to find a more productive environment.
This is the most thoughtful piece I have read that gives advice on when to use (and when not to use) Ruby on Rails. He also has some really practical advice on ways to introduce Rails in your company.
If you are wondering how (or whether) to introduce Rails in your company, this is a must read.
Posted in rails | no comments
Posted by Curt Hibbs
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:00:00 GMT
David Geary just posted this excellent analysis of why he thinks that Rails is near the tipping point and will soon become widely adopted. Its definitely worth reading.
I particularly liked the list of well known Java personalities who have already enthusiastically embraced Rails:
The preceeding connectors and mavens have all become passionate evangelists for Rails and through their blogs, training courses, and public speaking engagements, have managed to infect thousands of people world-wide with the Rails gospel.
There are certainly more names that could be added to this list, but its pretty impressive as it stands!
Posted in rails | no comments
Posted by Curt Hibbs
Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:00:00 GMT
Tim Bray, the co-inventor of XML, has some positive things to say about Ruby. He also, really likes the book Programming Ruby (aka the Pickaxe book):
The book is good; really exceptionally good. And, since there’s no way to avoid comparisons with That Other Language: Based on first impressions and light exposure (a basis that matters a lot) Ruby seems better-documented and easier to get into than Python. I’ve actually written (a little) production code in Python, but I always had the feeling that there was lots of stuff going on I didn’t understand; a couple of days in, I think I have a better grasp on what Ruby’s up to, even where I’m not looking.
(via lesscode.org)
Posted in ruby | no comments
Posted by Curt Hibbs
Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:00:00 GMT
Kevin Barnes has reframed the static vs. dynamic language debate in terms of their essential philosophical approaches: freedom vs. safety. This is the best analysis and exposition I have ever read. It definitely qualifies as a seminal work on this subject.
He has not only reframed the debate (correctly, in my opinion) but he has also distilled the essential ramifications of each side’s point of view.
Safety isn’t safe and freedom isn’t free
Both sets of languages are making tradeoffs about what they view as the most important features of a language. The freedom languages are choosing powerful feature sets and the safety languages favor clearer contracts and commonly readable syntax. These are choices about how best to achieve the goals of programming.
Many thanks to lesscode.org for bringing this excellent essay to my attention.
Posted in ruby, software development | no comments
Posted by Curt Hibbs
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:00:00 GMT
Long time Rubyists already know about Rake (Ruby’s equivalent to Make and Ant), but this may be news to our many new friends in the Ruby world.
Martin Fowler just wrote a very readable exploration showing how Rake has replaced his use of Ant. He also spends a considerable amount of time explaining the problem that build systems address, and the differences in how Make, Ant, and Rake solve these problems.
If you use Ant or Make you should read this. If you don’t use Ant or Make you can still read it… I won’t tell. ;-)
no comments
