27
Mar
08

Two generations of completely failed technology

I just love this quote from Rod Johnson: “The Entity Bean technology somehow ignored every piece of prior art, with the result that you had two generations of completely failed technology … The cause of object-relational mapping probably lost at least six years because of that, and [it caused] billions of dollars of wasted development.” I recall quiet distinctly the first time I looked at the EJB 1.0 specification and played with an implementation. I remember taking a sharp dislike to the technology and thinking that I would never use it. And I was right, I’ve never once used any EJBs (neither entity nor session beans) in any product or project I’ve worked on. There was always a more suitable and easier to use alternative.


7 Responses to “Two generations of completely failed technology”


  1. 1 kretes March 27, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    Maybe some arguments? Or not?

  2. 2 bah March 28, 2008 at 3:19 am

    Same Rod Johnson was completely ignoring rich client applications…

  3. 3 bort March 28, 2008 at 10:45 am

    IBM is responsible for most of the crappiest code in Java - Date, Calendar and EJB. I did a project on EJB 1.0 and it worked but I had to create BMP framework that tied into a home-grown ORM. Yuck - but it was 1999…

    EJB 1.0 did make three-tier development easier that it had been before but yeah, IBM created a spec without looking at anything non-IBM.

  4. 4 Tom March 28, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    I realized recently that some technologies were made to sell servers, and other technologies were made to help developers be productive.

    Many Java products were designed to sell servers; whereas Ruby and Spring were designed to make developers productive.

  5. 5 RemcoB March 28, 2008 at 7:31 pm

    “The cause of object-relational mapping probably lost at least six years because of that”

    No, ORM is the cause. It’s a stupid idea to try to map a beautiful relational model to an object model.

  6. 6 Vincent March 28, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    It’s a stupid idea to try to map a beautiful object model to a relational model ;-)

  7. 7 RemcoB March 28, 2008 at 10:12 pm

    vincent, we agree on the mapping part?! :)

Leave a Reply