Comments on: Java, Rails and programming for fun http://mparaz.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/ miguel posts on occasion Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:24:11 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Miguel http://mparaz.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-443 Miguel Sun, 27 May 2007 15:25:55 +0000 http://paraz.com/42/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-443 Yes there are fun stuff in Java but I'm looking for something different from what I use for work. And with Sun's recent moves, it looks like they want to cater to the RoR crowd as well. Rails for selling books? Haven't heard of it. Yes there are fun stuff in Java but I’m looking for something different from what I use for work. And with Sun’s recent moves, it looks like they want to cater to the RoR crowd as well.

Rails for selling books? Haven’t heard of it.

]]> By: jan2x http://mparaz.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-442 jan2x Sat, 26 May 2007 15:31:36 +0000 http://paraz.com/42/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-442 Good day, Java is a complete solution, actually Ruby on Rails is just a web framework, you are trap in it, but in Java there are many web framework - Struts, JSF, etc. - or if you are hardcore you can create one. One of the criticism of RoR is that it was just created to sell more books. Being a Java programmer, there are tons of fun still left in the language. But it's not going to hurt mastering another language. Good day,

Java is a complete solution, actually Ruby on Rails is just a web framework, you are trap in it, but in Java there are many web framework – Struts, JSF, etc. – or if you are hardcore you can create one. One of the criticism of RoR is that it was just created to sell more books.

Being a Java programmer, there are tons of fun still left in the language. But it’s not going to hurt mastering another language.

]]> By: Miguel http://mparaz.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-441 Miguel Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:22:07 +0000 http://paraz.com/42/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-441 Same here, it pays the bills. But it still needs to have some element of fun, to get encouraged to learn new stuff, and to inspire the team! So, I'm still looking for new Java stuff. Java Puzzlers by Bloch is a fun read but it's not something you can practice right away. Designing and architecting for fun? Not fun per se, but this may happen if and when you build or maintain a full open source product. I haven't gone there, alas. Same here, it pays the bills.

But it still needs to have some element of fun, to get encouraged to learn new stuff, and to inspire the team! So, I’m still looking for new Java stuff. Java Puzzlers by Bloch is a fun read but it’s not something you can practice right away.

Designing and architecting for fun? Not fun per se, but this may happen if and when you build or maintain a full open source product. I haven’t gone there, alas.

]]> By: Levi http://mparaz.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-440 Levi Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:40:56 +0000 http://paraz.com/42/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-440 "Java is no longer fun". Heh. I think I passed the point of saturation about two years ago. Java is now just work for me. I gets a project, I does it, and I gets paid. That's it. Ruby and RoR I probably can get into -- I took a dip through a couple of tutorials before, and it seems simple and elegant enough -- but ease-of-use for a developer is oftentimes inversely proportional to app performance. That kind of takes the "fun" out of it for me. Wonder if there's such a thing as "designing for fun"? or "architecting for fun"? But then again, I'll just have a bunch of UML diagrams to show for it afterwards. Pretty useless hehehe. “Java is no longer fun”. Heh. I think I passed the point of saturation about two years ago. Java is now just work for me. I gets a project, I does it, and I gets paid. That’s it.

Ruby and RoR I probably can get into — I took a dip through a couple of tutorials before, and it seems simple and elegant enough — but ease-of-use for a developer is oftentimes inversely proportional to app performance. That kind of takes the “fun” out of it for me.

Wonder if there’s such a thing as “designing for fun”? or “architecting for fun”? But then again, I’ll just have a bunch of UML diagrams to show for it afterwards. Pretty useless hehehe.

]]> By: Miguel http://mparaz.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-438 Miguel Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:39:27 +0000 http://paraz.com/42/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-438 Alright, perhaps I exaggerate with "shocking." What is very different for me is the convention over configuration paradigm. Especially when you refer to plurals of the entity objects, and you create .rhtml files named after the controller, without specifying it in a config file. The language really is nonrigid but not shocking since I have taken a look before. I have also used Python before so it's no surprise. The AWDWR book is quite nice, but I need some practice with a real app to really learn RoR. Alright, perhaps I exaggerate with “shocking.”

What is very different for me is the convention over configuration paradigm. Especially when you refer to plurals of the entity objects, and you create .rhtml files named after the controller, without specifying it in a config file.

The language really is nonrigid but not shocking since I have taken a look before. I have also used Python before so it’s no surprise.

The AWDWR book is quite nice, but I need some practice with a real app to really learn RoR.

]]> By: raichu http://mparaz.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-439 raichu Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:25:50 +0000 http://paraz.com/42/java-rails-and-programming-for-fun/#comment-439 shocking? how so? am interested because i use both ror and wicket (java) and i'll probably never get a copy of awdwr. which one did you find shocking, the language, the framework, or the book? why was it shocking to you? i assume it's because you find something "nonrigid" in it. if yes, what exactly is nonrigid about the language/framework/book? shocking? how so? am interested because i use both ror and wicket (java) and i’ll probably never get a copy of awdwr. which one did you find shocking, the language, the framework, or the book? why was it shocking to you? i assume it’s because you find something “nonrigid” in it. if yes, what exactly is nonrigid about the language/framework/book?

]]>