NYCPHP Meetup

[Paul A Houle]

Michael B Allen wrote:
> I also agree with you about all the "junk". C# and Java both suffer
> the "fluffy programming" problem. The number of classes and half-baked
> attempts at OO abstractions is unnecessarily complex and nonuniform.
> The number of C# assemblies is staggering. Why does logging in Java
> need 17 classes with all sorts of complex OO relations? That's just
> ridiculous.
>   
    It's enterprise-itis,  and it's not the fault of the language.  
Unfortunately,  companies like Sun and Microsoft will hire people who 
have systems programming experience but no real experience with the 
problem domain to develop tools.  Requirement #1 is putting as many 
acronyms in the marketing material as possible.  Requirement #2 is 
making it possible to interface with a large number of legacy system 
that ought to be taken behind the shed and shot.  Security,  
Reliablity,  Performance and developer convenience rank somewhere around 
Requirement #19482.  You'd get very different results if the system was 
written by a battle hardened IT sysadmin rather than a couple of college 
kids and Bangalore Bangers headed up a product manager hired away from a 
breakfast cereal company.

    ColdFusion,  ASP.NET and other commercial web systems appear to be 
built by smart people who'd never built web applications.  If they'd 
hired people who'd spent a decade writing webapps,  they'd understand 
the unwritten standards behind web sites that work.  However,  people 
who know how to build webaps and do systems work are busy.