Comments on: Frameworks for Ruby, is Rails all you need? http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2007/03/31/33649 David Intersimone (David I) CodeGear blog about programming, languages, history, and more. Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:27:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.3-2.2.1 By: Brian Moelk http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2007/03/31/33649#comment-1065 Brian Moelk Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:16:25 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2007/03/31/33649#comment-1065 You forgot DHH's blog!! <a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.loudthinking.com/">http://www.loudthinking.com/</a> You forgot DHH’s blog!! http://www.loudthinking.com/

]]> By: Thaddy De Koning http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2007/03/31/33649#comment-1060 Thaddy De Koning Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:53:43 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2007/03/31/33649#comment-1060 I see your point :) But there's a rather nice article available, I believe in the old museum (the Anders one, about Delphi 1) that may lead the unaware to believe otherwise. <br>Also it's not the quantity or richness of a language that's at the core of this. It is the quality and necessity of certain language extensions that imho differ between the two and explain why Rails may be driving the language. What would be a good idea if the former would drive some features into oblivion faster... but that's another subject. I see your point :) But there’s a rather nice article available, I believe in the old museum (the Anders one, about Delphi 1) that may lead the unaware to believe otherwise.

Also it’s not the quantity or richness of a language that’s at the core of this. It is the quality and necessity of certain language extensions that imho differ between the two and explain why Rails may be driving the language. What would be a good idea if the former would drive some features into oblivion faster… but that’s another subject.

]]> By: David Intersimone http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2007/03/31/33649#comment-577 David Intersimone Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:30:43 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2007/03/31/33649#comment-577 > framework is driving a language: What about the VCL? <br> <br>Hmm, err - well, VCL was built on top of the language Object Pascal. The language extensions go well beyond the property, method, event model. If you also remember, Delphi also supported using VBX controls (which had their own PME). <br> <br>Interfaces were first for COM programming and then generalized for any kind of use. Class Helpers were introduced to facilitate VCL on .NET, but they are also a generalized language capability. <br> <br>Thinking about .NET, is it the CLR and CTS that is driving the framework or the framework driving the languages on .NET? > framework is driving a language: What about the VCL?

Hmm, err - well, VCL was built on top of the language Object Pascal. The language extensions go well beyond the property, method, event model. If you also remember, Delphi also supported using VBX controls (which had their own PME).

Interfaces were first for COM programming and then generalized for any kind of use. Class Helpers were introduced to facilitate VCL on .NET, but they are also a generalized language capability.

Thinking about .NET, is it the CLR and CTS that is driving the framework or the framework driving the languages on .NET?

]]> By: Thaddy De Koning http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2007/03/31/33649#comment-576 Thaddy De Koning Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:20:38 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2007/03/31/33649#comment-576 well, that would be the second time a framework is driving a language: What about the VCL? As I recall the language extensions introduced in Delphi were explicitly introduced with the framework in mind :) Funny remark, yours, especially coming from YOU ;) well, that would be the second time a framework is driving a language: What about the VCL? As I recall the language extensions introduced in Delphi were explicitly introduced with the framework in mind :) Funny remark, yours, especially coming from YOU ;)

]]>