[Seaside] Seaside vs. Traditional

[cdrick]

sorry, forget last mail... bad gmail manipulation...  sent without finishing !

>  >
>  > So, I agree with you. Seaside IS harder for those with a "traditional"
>  > background. But I think traditional includes standard static language
>  > programming to produce basic client applications for typical operating
>  > systems. And from THAT point of view, I feel like I don't understand web
>  > programming ENOUGH to even lay things out on the screen where I want them to
>  > be, or get images into my application (yes, basic stuff like that).

actually laying down stuff is html+css ie. traditionnal web pages.

I think seaside allow you more easily than other frameworks to define
Desktop like application, ie. GUI ( Interacting with entries and
output of your application). The counter demo is excellent in that
respect.

The problem we all have when starting with seaside is that we are
quickly tempted by xhtml css and js sirens to make pretty layout and
good looking app. But just to feed your app and interact with the
result, seaside is really cool ! Then, to make pretty stuff, problem
arise as you need to have a good understanding of web technologies,
even if they are abstracted in smalltalk.

My feeling of Aida, is that it's closer to classic web vision (html
layout of objects) and the nice feature is that anObject = anUrl. And
of course, it's a REST alternative. I would be curious to see the
counter in Aida (implementation).

>  >
>  > But WHY was Aida easier for me? Is it because it is "less powerful?"

not but probably closer to what you want to do...

That would be nice to have "how-to's" for several use cases and see
implementations in both framework because it's hard to figure out both
framework pro and cons.

Cheers,

Cédrick

ps: when looking at auctomatic, you see the "only" seaside part, is
the app part which is quite complex. Unless you're logged in you're
not using seaside but plain html. BTW, I'll be curious to know if it's
done in ST too...