They asked Watson senior how many of his new business machine IBM expected to sell. He answered that the world needed perhaps half a dozen computers.
So, maybe, because a person invents something does not mean they are equally brilliant at assessing its market?
I give this as an example: "Roo is marketed as a “next-generation rapid application development tool for Java developers”" http://dileeph.wordpress.com/2010/03...to-spring-roo/
These are Roo commands that generate a small app:
To me, calling this Roo code a tool for Java developers is to call a car a horseless carriage. It is expressing the thing in the terms of the current mental model, when a new mental model is called for.Code:project --toplevel package .... osgi start .... jpa setup --database .... database reverse engineer .... web mvc scaffold ....
In the development life-cycle we are putting together the developers do not post versions of the application code to Bitbucket. We post Roo scripts, Roo plugins, SQL to build the databases, artefacts from other code generators, Spring config files and snippets of hand coded stuff that Roo at al do not cover (which includes Java code of course). Developers generate the app on their machine, not copy it down. We are targeting a model driven process. The outcome is a Java app, but we do not work much in Java.
Roo brings dependency injection, aspects and all the things great about Spring to the code generation domain. Roo bests the other code generation tools like Spring bests other enterprise Java approaches.
To sell Roo to Java developers is to sell Christmas to Turkeys. Roo is an object of love for developer strategists.
Does anyone agree?


Reply With Quote
