Play's simplicity and its favouring of 'getting-shit-done'-attitude over the 'layering-and-overarchitecting'-attitude in the Java community has greatly benefited its rise. I really hope this type-safe Scala reimplementation of the framework pays off and is not a step backwards.
We're still in line with our "no useless boilerplate" approach in Play 2.0. You can look at the samples and make up your own mind about whether we've been successful or not:
Agreed, I'm not going to say Java syntax is awesome (it's not), but I think the "over-architecting" attitude you mention has done far more to drive people away from Java (e.g. the great Ruby exodus) than the syntax itself.
Comments
Play's simplicity and its favouring of 'getting-shit-done'-attitude over the 'layering-and-overarchitecting'-attitude in the Java community has greatly benefited its rise. I really hope this type-safe Scala reimplementation of the framework pays off and is not a step backwards.
We're still in line with our "no useless boilerplate" approach in Play 2.0. You can look at the samples and make up your own mind about whether we've been successful or not:
https://github.com/playframework/Play20/tree/master/samples
Agreed, I'm not going to say Java syntax is awesome (it's not), but I think the "over-architecting" attitude you mention has done far more to drive people away from Java (e.g. the great Ruby exodus) than the syntax itself.
Well, they have had Scala support for quite a while:
http://scala.playframework.org/
Thankfully there are people who are working against the 'layering-and-overarchitecting'-attitude, but it takes time to get the message through.
I hope there is still good support for us old folks who like our plain old Java!