In contrast with Rails, the problem I see with WebObjects is its overall cost and complexity to deploy for small-medium business. That is, most businesses.
It doesn't bring a lot extra to the table for quickly building basic web apps for small to medium enterprise when compared to Rails. But in comparison it costs a prohibitive amount to deploy.
You could say that Rails is Xserve, and that WebObjects is Windows on a DELL server, at least from the perspective of Apple's core business users.
WebObjects appears to have missed the Enterprise boat. The price reduction back in 2000 was too little, too late. Apple need to retool it and aim at small/medium business. This is what Rails has done. It's not the fastest performing web app platform, doesn't have a zillion extra features available via third party Java packages. But it's the Mac of web apps - simple to use, extremely productive for developers, and does most tasks very well.
As an aside, I'd like to see Rails and all the Ruby Gems included in Mac OS X.
by Dale — May 31
It doesn't bring a lot extra to the table for quickly building basic web apps for small to medium enterprise when compared to Rails. But in comparison it costs a prohibitive amount to deploy.
You could say that Rails is Xserve, and that WebObjects is Windows on a DELL server, at least from the perspective of Apple's core business users.
WebObjects appears to have missed the Enterprise boat. The price reduction back in 2000 was too little, too late. Apple need to retool it and aim at small/medium business. This is what Rails has done. It's not the fastest performing web app platform, doesn't have a zillion extra features available via third party Java packages. But it's the Mac of web apps - simple to use, extremely productive for developers, and does most tasks very well.
As an aside, I'd like to see Rails and all the Ruby Gems included in Mac OS X.