We Java developers have perfected the art revisionism. We're so eager to latch onto what is new and hot that we re-write history. We paint older technologies as evil, the source of all our failures and miseries. The two places I see this the most is when talking about J2EE and Struts.
I'm not going argue for J2EE or Struts. You couldn't pay me enough to want to work with either of them. I've been spoiled by the simplicity of EJB3, and I'd never willing go back to an action-oriented web framework after using component-based frameworks like JSF and WebObjects. If you add Facelets to the mix, I've almost abandoned every piece of technology I used daily just 3 or 4 years back.
Although I don't hesitate to speak frankly about the problems I had with those older technologies, I have developed a many successful systems using them over the years. In my first couple years at JBoss, I travelled quite a bit working with customers and have seen successful J2EE project after successful J2EE project.
Yes, J2EE is bulky and awkward in comparison to EJB3 and other lighter technologies, but that doesn't mean that it was impossible to deliver functional systems on. It was quite easy to do, even with very average development teams.
So, why then do we read time and time again about failed J2EE systems? Sure, many projects don't succeed, but in my experience it is rarely the technology chosen. I'd postulate that if you took a team with a failed J2EE project and swapped in another technology, that the team would most likely still produce a failed project. Better technology cannot turn a failed project into a successful one.
At the same time, technology is important. I strongly believe that if you took a team that developed a successful J2EE project and gave them more modern technologies, that they would be equally successful. They would be able to do the same project faster than before, and they would be happier doing it. Clearly technology chosen is a big deal, and you want your team to be using the best tools possible. It will make a difference. Just don't expect those technologies to compensate for a bad process, bad management or (dare I say) bad programmers.
As a final note, I'll concede that some technologies are so bad that I can't imagine any team being successful with them. My point isn't that all technologies are good, but simply that Java developers as a whole are all too eager to pretend like everything old is in that category and absolve ourselves from the guilt of past failures.
> <p>So, why then do we read time and time again about > failed J2EE systems? Sure, many projects don't succeed, > but in my experience it is rarely the technology chosen. > I'd postulate that if you took a team with a failed J2EE > E project and swapped in another technology, that the team > would most likely still produce a failed project. Better > technology cannot turn a failed project into a successful > one.</p>
Bullshit. How about this:
"A failed attempt to travel across the ocean in a rowboat wouldn't have been successful if an ocean liner had been used instead."
or
"A failed attempt to build a building using sticks and mud wouldn't have been successful if concrete and steel had been used instead.
etc...
Statements like that obviously make no sense. We take it for granted in any other area of human endeavor that better technology makes it possible to achieve results that couldn't otherwise be delievered. And yet somehow, in the one area where technology would seem to matter the most, we pretend that it doesn't matter and repeat nonsense like "you can write good code in any language." Uh-huh. Right.
Previous Topic
