in reply to Ignorant Article

I don't have much to say about that article, but two points of fact:
  1. I am unable to tell that the article was written a long time ago -- it clearly says "copyright 2003" at the bottom and I can't see any other date information on it.
  2. The thing that annoys me most about it is that thing about "cgi interfaces are always ugly". That's so ridiculous, it's surreal. I just have no idea how anyone who understood HTML and CGI could write that.

“Every bit of code is either naturally related to the problem at hand, or else it's an accidental side effect of the fact that you happened to solve the problem using a digital computer.”

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Ignorant Article
by steves (Curate) on Feb 18, 2003 at 23:44 UTC

    We may never know ... the web site that supposedly has the full original is still down. Maybe a CGI is serving the articles. 8-)

    In the rebuttal, he/she contrasts CGI with J2EE. If his assertion is that the article is too dated to account for mod_perl and fast CGI, then I'd assert that a comparison to J2EE is also unfair. Let's instead compare the alternatives at the time the article was written.

    I can't help myself ... I love a good debate. 8-)

      There really weren't any at the time. There was no servlets, com objects, beans, or php...there was cold fusion though...