On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:45:57 +0900, Christian Neukirchen
<chneukirchen / gmail.com> wrote:
> Nicolas Delsaux <nicolas.delsaux / gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:13:17 +0900, Christian Neukirchen
> > <chneukirchen / gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> J2EE apps can be abstracted rather well (I think), but Java doesn't
> >> allow going high-level enough to make coding bearable.  You notice
> >> that as soon as code generation, XDoclet etc. gets used.
> >
> > Not to enter a J2EE sucks (not) flamewar, but one shouldn't confuse
> > misconceptions in J2EE with Java's own abstraction level.
> > As a Java/J2EE developper, I do think they are two completely
> > different things. Java is quite a good programming language. Simple,
> > elegant, and powerful. But J2EE is all crap ! Nobody should ever have
> > to write a single line of those fugly XML files. And, for that,
> > annotations can be the best thing in Java5.
> > But I'm here really off-topic.
> 
> I have no idea about J2EE, really; but I dislike Java enough on it's
> own.  If Java was as meta-programmable as Ruby, J2EE wouldn't need XML
> for configuration.
> 
Something else I find interesting. The hatred towards non programmatic
configuration files.

Programmatic configuration is great for programmers, but where would
the average application user be without simple, hard to mess up
configuration, like sendmail.cf for example :-)

Or perhaps the bile is directed only at the overly verbose XML?

> > Nicolas Delsaux
> --
> Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen / gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org
> 
> 


-- 
Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.