Paz <paz@chello.nl> said:
I would suggest he also be aware of Uniface's (multi)million line-plus of coding in their kernel, as opposed to Zope that is a small fraction of that.
Uniface is written in C, Zope in Python. That probably accounts for a difference in LOC by one order of magnitude. Furthermore, it could be that Uniface is just not written very well (although Zope's code could do with some major refactoring work as well), which tends to bloat LOC.
Having worked for Tech Support at the Uniface lab, I've heard it all from customers. EVERYONE says how complex their application is... blah blah blah.
Having developed a really complex application for one of Uniface major customers (license key serial number '13', IIRC :-)), I can say that I ran into mostly the same limits with Uniface as with Zope, and solved it in mostly the same way: by resorting to plain old code on the disk (for Uniface, it was VAX Pascal code in shared libraries, for Zope, it's called a Product). Compared to other development environments, I can say it sucks in both cases. Zope could shine with just four things: 1. An IDE (modelled after Smalltalk); 2. Version control/configuration management; 3. A way to define classes in more places than the Products folder, so that you can have local ZClasses. 4. A major overhaul of the security stuff, which is a PITA to work with.