[Bese-devel] UCW vs Seaside (and Scheme)

[Waldo Rubinstein]

On Sep 6, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Marco Baringer wrote:

> Waldo Rubinstein <waldo at trianet.net> writes:
>
>
>> I understand that continuations and tail-call optimization are native
>> to Scheme. However, I like the UCW-way rather than what I have read
>> on Scheme for web development. Granted, UCW is still in its
>> childhood, as some refer, but that doesn't scare me much. When I
>> started with rails, you could say it might have been at the same
>> stage as UCW, but with alot of suggestions from a very active
>> community and a dedicated team of developers, rails evolved very
>> rapidly.
>>
>
> just for the record: tco and continuations are two completely
> orthogonal techniques. tco is basically an optimization technique (if
> you had an infinite stack you'd never _need_ tco) while continuations
> actually allow you exrpess things which previously were unexrpessable
> (or very very difficult to express).
>
> ucw is a niche library running in a niche language, i strongly doubt
> we'll ever have a community as big as rails'. so it goes.

Although I appreciate your humble opinion, I think that with proper  
collaborative efforts, it can be as good/big as rails or better/bigger.

>> During my testing of Squeak/Seaside, I tested several OODBs and
>> quickly learned about its benefits, particularly for some of the
>> applications I develop. I only came across a couple of efforts in
>> Lisp for OODBs. One was Elephant and the other was PLOB. I haven't
>> had a chance to use either one, but while reading about PLOB, I
>> discovered that it requires a server application managed by U. of St.
>> Andrews, but no one seems to be able to get that going (at least from
>> what I read), and that piece may require license fees. Elephant seems
>> promising, but then again, I haven't stressed tested it (I haven't
>> stress tested anything in Lisp yet for that matter).
>>
>
> i'm successfully using elephant on a production server. i contacted
> sleepycat (they're pretty nice people and it doesn't hurt to ask): if
> you run your app on a server then you don't pay license fees, only if
> you start distributing berkeley db embedded inside a desktop app do
> you need to pay the fees (and that becomes prohibitly expensive for
> me).

Then that wouldn't be a problem for me.

>> Overall, as far as UCW is concerned, I don't really know how involved
>> the community is. Also, I don't know how committed the developers are
>> to continually advance UCW.
>>
>
> ucw is one of the main tools my company uses to develop web based
> apps, as long as we can keep finding clients ucw will continue to be
> developed and maintained.

Other than developing UCW, how does your company use UCW? Any sample  
public apps you can refer me to?


Thanks,
Waldo