Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2009

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 102748
interpreted = N
texte = Just wanted to get my $0.02 in here. At the moment I'm not doing any active development in WebDNA but I've been using it since 1998 or thereabouts, and everything Matthew and the other list members have stated here is true. There are also numerous other reasons that WebDNA is head and shoulders above any other development platform at least from my perspective, and seeing what Donovan and the new WedDNA Software Corporation have been doing over the past months has been very exciting, especially after watching SmithMicro essentially bury the product.But my concern, over the past few years in particular, is that if I create a WebDNA-dependent site for a client, and at some future time they decide to move it or use another host, they essentially have a pile of useless code that no one is going to be able to work with unless the Web hoste to which they transfer it happens to already have (unlikely) WebDNA installed, or purchases a WebDNA license. And if we're talking Dreamhost or GoDaddy or Xinet or the like, that's probably not going to happen. Then the client feels like they paid a lot of money for a useless set of Web pages that now need to be completely recoded, typically in PHP because that's ubiquitous and freely available.So I'm curious to get other developers' perspectives on this. Does anyone ever feel "guilty" creating a WebDNA-based site for a client, knowing that they've pretty much locked them into staying on their own server? Or am I making a big deal out of something that's really not an issue, in the sense that if I deliver a site that works the way the client wants it to work, whether or not the code is portable is irrelevant? Does anyone explain in writing to their cllent(s) that the site they've built for them is essentially not going to run on any other Web server out there unless they can convince the host to purchase and install a copy of WebDNA?There have already been a few times where I was approached to put a site together and submitted a proposal, knowing I could get it turned around more quickly than most and bring it in at a reasonable price, both thanks to WebDNA, but the client insisted on hosting with Dreamhost and that was non-negotiable, so situations like that basically cause me to lose work. I've hosted my own sites at various times, but maintaining and monitoring a Web server that needs to be up 24/7 is not, at least to me, the best situation to get involved in when you're a one-person shop.On Jun 17, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Matthew Bohne wrote:> The number one reason is development time. I have spent hundreds > of hours trying to duplicate simple functionality of WebDNA in > PHP. I have a library of some functions and classes (including a > shopping cart that I have about 300 hours in, and it still doesn't > do everything as easily as WebDNA). I have spent easily three > times as long on a PHP site than a WebDNA site. Code takes time to > write and test. More code takes more time. The hard part has > already been done in WebDNA, the functions are simple and easy to > use. There are no huge libraries of functions and classes to do > fancy things because there doesn't need to be. There is no huge > collection of classes for connecting to a database and pulling out > information... it's built in. The database administrator is built > in. While we're on the subject of databases... It's text. Need to > manually update a record while you're testing? Would you rather > load up phpMyAdmin, do some command line SQL, or open the database > in a text editor?>> To address the learning curve... If you know PHP, WebDNA is a > breeze to learn. Most developers wirth their salt know multiple > languages anyway, so learning a new one is a breeze. I learned the > basics of WebDNA in two weeks.>> WebDNA programing is fast. You end up spending less time doing the > same tasks. It's about efficiency.>> Lawrence Banahan wrote:>> Hi All,>>>> I'm using Webdna for almost 7 years and don't what to change...>> But it is impossible to find trainee that would accept to learn it...>> I also have partners who would like us to pass the river and get >> to php/MySql.>> When I have a look at MySql it looks horrible to me, but is it >> more powerfull than Webcatalog?>> I know about http://webdna.us/page.dna?numero=37>> But what other reason could I say to keep going on Webdna...>>>> Thank's for your Help>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------->> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to>> the mailing list .>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us>> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/>--Gil Poulsen, Mac Wirehead************************AltiM@c Consulting23 Marco Polo CourtFranklin Park, NJ 08823-1703Voice: 609-359-0103************************ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (Terry Wilson 2009)
Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (Donovan Brooke 2009)
Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (Lawrence Banahan 2009)
Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (Frank Nordberg 2009)
Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't ("Psi Prime, Matthew A Perosi " 2009)
Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (Donovan Brooke 2009)
RE: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't ("Michael A. DeLorenzo" 2009)
Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (Terry Wilson 2009)
Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2009)
RE: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't ("Tana Adams" 2009)
Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (Gil Poulsen 2009)
RE: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't ("Michael A. DeLorenzo" 2009)
Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2009)
Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (Matthew Bohne 2009)
[WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't (Lawrence Banahan 2009)

Just wanted to get my $0.02 in here. At the moment I'm not doing any active development in WebDNA but I've been using it since 1998 or thereabouts, and everything Matthew and the other list members have stated here is true. There are also numerous other reasons that WebDNA is head and shoulders above any other development platform at least from my perspective, and seeing what Donovan and the new WedDNA Software Corporation have been doing over the past months has been very exciting, especially after watching SmithMicro essentially bury the product.But my concern, over the past few years in particular, is that if I create a WebDNA-dependent site for a client, and at some future time they decide to move it or use another host, they essentially have a pile of useless code that no one is going to be able to work with unless the Web hoste to which they transfer it happens to already have (unlikely) WebDNA installed, or purchases a WebDNA license. And if we're talking Dreamhost or GoDaddy or Xinet or the like, that's probably not going to happen. Then the client feels like they paid a lot of money for a useless set of Web pages that now need to be completely recoded, typically in PHP because that's ubiquitous and freely available.So I'm curious to get other developers' perspectives on this. Does anyone ever feel "guilty" creating a WebDNA-based site for a client, knowing that they've pretty much locked them into staying on their own server? Or am I making a big deal out of something that's really not an issue, in the sense that if I deliver a site that works the way the client wants it to work, whether or not the code is portable is irrelevant? Does anyone explain in writing to their cllent(s) that the site they've built for them is essentially not going to run on any other Web server out there unless they can convince the host to purchase and install a copy of WebDNA?There have already been a few times where I was approached to put a site together and submitted a proposal, knowing I could get it turned around more quickly than most and bring it in at a reasonable price, both thanks to WebDNA, but the client insisted on hosting with Dreamhost and that was non-negotiable, so situations like that basically cause me to lose work. I've hosted my own sites at various times, but maintaining and monitoring a Web server that needs to be up 24/7 is not, at least to me, the best situation to get involved in when you're a one-person shop.On Jun 17, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Matthew Bohne wrote:> The number one reason is development time. I have spent hundreds > of hours trying to duplicate simple functionality of WebDNA in > PHP. I have a library of some functions and classes (including a > shopping cart that I have about 300 hours in, and it still doesn't > do everything as easily as WebDNA). I have spent easily three > times as long on a PHP site than a WebDNA site. Code takes time to > write and test. More code takes more time. The hard part has > already been done in WebDNA, the functions are simple and easy to > use. There are no huge libraries of functions and classes to do > fancy things because there doesn't need to be. There is no huge > collection of classes for connecting to a database and pulling out > information... it's built in. The database administrator is built > in. While we're on the subject of databases... It's text. Need to > manually update a record while you're testing? Would you rather > load up phpMyAdmin, do some command line SQL, or open the database > in a text editor?>> To address the learning curve... If you know PHP, WebDNA is a > breeze to learn. Most developers wirth their salt know multiple > languages anyway, so learning a new one is a breeze. I learned the > basics of WebDNA in two weeks.>> WebDNA programing is fast. You end up spending less time doing the > same tasks. It's about efficiency.>> Lawrence Banahan wrote:>> Hi All,>>>> I'm using Webdna for almost 7 years and don't what to change...>> But it is impossible to find trainee that would accept to learn it...>> I also have partners who would like us to pass the river and get >> to php/MySql.>> When I have a look at MySql it looks horrible to me, but is it >> more powerfull than Webcatalog?>> I know about http://webdna.us/page.dna?numero=37>> But what other reason could I say to keep going on Webdna...>>>> Thank's for your Help>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------->> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to>> the mailing list .>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us>> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/>--Gil Poulsen, Mac Wirehead************************AltiM@c Consulting23 Marco Polo CourtFranklin Park, NJ 08823-1703Voice: 609-359-0103************************ Gil Poulsen

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: [WebDNA] What does PHP(5) has, that Webdna hasn't

2009

Top Articles:

Related Readings: