Just my 2 cents

Let me quote my comment:

>> who have not investigated the alternatives and who don’t have the strength to admit it.

I rest my case.

P.S: Look up “cognitive dissonance” on Wikipedia.

1). There are several valid motivations to delete a comment. Your first comment was compatible with my definition of spam. If you look at some other comments on my posts, you’ll see I’m not one for deleting comments I don’t agree with. Stop acting like a child still.
2). This is getting a bit immature, but I’ll indulge you. You referred to ‘googling JSF’ once, then I countered it by showing it’s pointless, to which you replied by turning that around to support your first claim. At least that’s how I understood it. Sorry if I misunderstood.
3). I just picked the first name that stood out to me from the list you used for your argument. Way to go brains. Let’s just go over the entire list then, shall we?

Rod Johnson: 5 years old dinosaur post on JSF alone.
Bob Lee: three years old post, comparing JSF alone to Google Web Toolkit. He works at Google himself.
Matt Raible (reference 1): 5 years old dinosaur post on JSF alone.
Matt Raible (reference 2): 2 years old post about how JSF sucks without suplemental frameworks such as Facelets. Completely supports my claims.
Matt Raible (reference 3): Matt mentions a different blogpost by Xebia about their experiences with JSF. They didn’t even use Facelets; ofcourse they’re going to have a hard time developing with JSF.
Sanjiv Jivan: Reasonably recent post witth an assessment on JSF alone, and then Flex and Ajax. Again no mention of supplemental frameworks. I also respectfully disagree with his view on Flex. The company I work for has proven otherwise to me on every facet, including SEO.

I agree with most of these guys, but their arguments are mostly irrelevant, as they only cover JSF on its own: that’s pointless. That’s like saying a BMW isn’t as safe as an Opel with Airbags, while the airbags are optional for the BMW and you simply neglect to mention that. It’s not how the real world works. Maybe that line of thought worked 5 years ago for JSF, but now it’s exactly as I said before: It’s time for critics to take JSF as is: incomplete but ultimately making you more productive if combined with the right frameworks.

Accusing me of displaying pathological behavior only asserts your own. Resorting to character assassination displays a lack of quality arguments on your behalf. On a final note: ‘who don’t have the strength to admit it‘. And what is ‘it’ exactly? you’ve completely failed to define what ‘it’ is that I’m not admitting to. That JSF sucks? I already said JSF sucks on its own over and over, which is kind the the point of this entire blogpost, isn’t it?

1) you admit to deleting a comment, the lowest form of blog etiquette. then you lecture others on “discussing” and “acting like a child”. nice.
2) I mentioned googling for JSF sucks once. you say “keep insisting on”. liar.
3) the good thing about the list of links is that it starts from 2004 but continues upto 2009 / the present (5 years of suckiness!). of course, you have to bash the one link from 2004 saying it is out of date. nice try :)

This pathological behavior is something I’ve observed in a lot of JSF supporters – people who have invested a lot of time in JSF, who have not investigated the alternatives and who don’t have the strength to admit it. It’s cognitive dissonance.

Concerning your doubts whether I read it any of it: I have, it’s an old thread and I’ve participated in the comments thread as well. The reactions (to everyone’s in fact): single minded flaming. No adult arguing, just simply flaming with one goal.

Concerning your point about a ‘comprehensive list of hyper-linked, verifiable references to comments by real people’: I don’t dispute that. I said it is an unbalanced pool of information, poisonous in fact. With ‘nonobjective biased site of propaganda’ I referred to the site owner who compiled the list. Anyone can put together a site, only referring to articles that say something sucks. That’s just immature. Also the names you refer to are irrelevant, old quotes in a time where JSF couldn’t be corrected by supplemental frameworks. Take Rod Johnson’s point for example, it’s a quote from 2004 about JSF. No mention of its potential or combinatorial qualities… simply JSF itself which I already admitted is flawed on its own. And this is used as ‘proper’ argument? Useless propaganda I say.

It is obvious that JSF sucks, but a significant portion of the Java community (including yourself) seem to like it :)

Anyway, the fact that you dismiss as “propaganda” – a comprehensive list of hyper-linked, verifiable references to comments by real people, including names such as Matt Raible, Bob Lee, Rod Johnson, Sanjiv Jivan etc. – that speaks for itself. I’m wondering whether _you_ bothered to read it all.