Tuesday, June 06, 2006
EJAX
Let me publicly claim here the name EJAX. Vaporware at its best! I suppose anyone who wants to combine some AJAX and Eiffel will come up with this name, and I did a while ago. But I doubt I will have anything to release, or at least something that's in a usable format. What I like to have, and what I'm working on, is a declarative framework for web applications. Not only suitable for new ones, but to extend or modify parts of existing ones.
I'm developing this framework as part of some web development work I'm doing for a certain website (and I could do it in Eiffel). The goal is to generate most of the code in order to achieve a very high level of productivity. Because that is what counts. Else your time would be too expensive for many clients to afford on smaller website. I rely heavily on xplain2sql to do the database side. The framework should be independent of implementation strategies, so if you're using an eposix CGI or Goanna servlet should be just an option.
I like small frameworks, and I've found the prototype and Rico frameworks very useful, so that's what I'm using. But ideally you want to be independent of these as well.
I'm developing this framework as part of some web development work I'm doing for a certain website (and I could do it in Eiffel). The goal is to generate most of the code in order to achieve a very high level of productivity. Because that is what counts. Else your time would be too expensive for many clients to afford on smaller website. I rely heavily on xplain2sql to do the database side. The framework should be independent of implementation strategies, so if you're using an eposix CGI or Goanna servlet should be just an option.
I like small frameworks, and I've found the prototype and Rico frameworks very useful, so that's what I'm using. But ideally you want to be independent of these as well.
posted by Berend de Boer @ 19:44 
Comments:
<< Home
You do realise your chosen name EJAX conflicts with Brian Heilig's suggestions to avoid mentioning the "E" word at all costs?
> Yes, but I also note that Ruby on Rails isn't shy in mentioning Ruby.
That's because Ruby is sexy these days. "It's written in Ruby" is perceived as an advantage to many.
> avoid mentioning the "E" word at all costs.
I don't remember being this dogmatic. Please allow me to summarize my argument, because it wasn't so much about naming convention as it was about putting emphasis in the wrong place:
1. "It's written in Eiffel" is perceived as a liability by many.
2. We know different, viz. because it's written in Eiffel it tends to be more robust, maintainable, readable, etc.
3. Therefore, instead of focusing on "It's written in Eiffel", I suggest you focus on "It's more maintainable, robust, readable, etc."
4. Profit!
Brian
That's because Ruby is sexy these days. "It's written in Ruby" is perceived as an advantage to many.
> avoid mentioning the "E" word at all costs.
I don't remember being this dogmatic. Please allow me to summarize my argument, because it wasn't so much about naming convention as it was about putting emphasis in the wrong place:
1. "It's written in Eiffel" is perceived as a liability by many.
2. We know different, viz. because it's written in Eiffel it tends to be more robust, maintainable, readable, etc.
3. Therefore, instead of focusing on "It's written in Eiffel", I suggest you focus on "It's more maintainable, robust, readable, etc."
4. Profit!
Brian
adamsits,
If you're bothered, just use the full name rather than the initials when you're meeting with the suits.
Post a Comment
If you're bothered, just use the full name rather than the initials when you're meeting with the suits.
<< Home
