Matt Raible posted a slideshow from his preso at Devoxx, comparing web frameworks. Spring MVC won, although GWT and Ruby on Rails were right there with it. He's a struts snob so it wasn't even considered, and struts 2 was only okay; he posted the actual ratings on google docs.
Things that stand out from the spreadsheet:
- Each grading point was equal. Developer perception gets one point. Same for risk, same forpublished books, same for REST support, and all the opinions were subjective.
- Tapestry got a 13.5. Struts 2 got a 14.5. Grails got 16.5, and Wicket got 14.5. (GWT, Ruby, and Spring MVC all got 17.) I know I'm subjective too, but Tapestry would have gotten like a 3 based on the people I've talked to, and Wicket would have gotten a 24 or so, because its fanboys would have stuffed the ballot boxes like wolverines.
The spreadsheet's not all there is. The presentation slideshow itself was pretty interesting.
It suggested that high-traffic internet apps should use request-based frameworks, intranet apps should use component frameworks (GWT, Wicket), long-lived projects should go for the largest community, and legacy apps should use the legacy apps language. Giant leaps huh?
The pros and cons were inconsistent.
Spring MVC was okay - no instant reload (JRebel got a shoutout).
GWT had a con of "you have to know Java," but isn't that true of Spring MVC too? Plus, it was labeled as "more like a jsp tag library than a web framework," which is pretty much wrong based on what I've seen of GWT.
Rails didn't have a con of "have to know ruby."
Wicket: "no jobs or developers." Maybe I know all fifteen of the wicket developers and they're all "enthusiastic." (Wonder what Andrew Lombardi thinks, he's been doing the conference circuit with wicket.)
It's a cool presentation, especially if you can imagine Raible talking his way through it.
What's sad, though, is that all the graphs look like they're saying to use Ruby on Rails, or Struts. THIS would have been where the sound to the presentation would have been awesome. BTW, there are LOTS of graphs at the end, and you kinda have to look carefully to see that they're comparing and contrasting technologies as sets. Most of the graphs could have been eliminated, but then Matt would probably have had to come up with other filler for his presentation.