Re: [WEB400] Beginning web development

["Brad Stone" <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:58:23 -0500
 "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com> wrote:
> It's not a Holy War, Brad, and just because you "can" do
> it in CGI doesn't
> mean you should.  That's the attitude I've tried to
> counteract throughout
> all these discussions - people telling other people to
> use a substandard
> tool.  You can pound a nail with a screwdriver, but that
> doesn't make it the
> right tool.  And me saying that you should use a hammer
> doesn't make me a
> zealot.

Please, Joe.  These are your opinions.  The one thing you'll
notice is I never say JSP or Java is not the right tool for
anything.  I simply say pick your tool, and suggest the one
I use and have had great success with, as do you.  You
continue to call CGI substandard, which is just not right.

I myself try to counteract statement that you make because
they are false.  And the nail/hammer/screwdriver example you
(and others) like to use is just plain silly and doesn't
prove anything.

>
> CGI has its uses, but they're not for interactive
> applications.  You cannot
> do in CGI the same things you can do in JSP without a lot
> of extra
> infrastructure.  If your application is more an
> output-only application -
> data mining or something equivalent, it's easier to do in
> CGI.  If your
> application involves a lot of interaction with the user,
> similar to
> 5250-based applications, then the flexibility of JSP
> makes it the better
> approach.

Ok, Joe, explain to me how JSP is better for interactive web
pages than CGI.  No, you haven't in the past.  You've used a
lot of technical terms and jargon, but all in all your
outputting HTML with either tool.  How can one work better
than the other.  One may  be easier for you or I because we
are more familiar with it, but better, no.

A great way to explain this would be some code snippets.
Myself, and others, would love to see what you mean.  Even
if it's just some psuedocode.

Brad