Compare Play and Spark Software 
- Users report that "Play" excels in ease of use with a score of 7.4, while "Spark" shines even brighter with an impressive score of 8.7, indicating that users find "Spark" more intuitive and user-friendly.
- Reviewers mention that "Play" has a solid ease of setup score of 8.3, which is slightly higher than "Spark" at 8.1, suggesting that users find "Play" easier to implement initially.
- G2 users highlight that "Spark" outperforms "Play" in ease of administration, scoring 8.2 compared to "Play's" 6.7, indicating that managing "Spark" is more straightforward and less time-consuming for administrators.
- Users on G2 report that "Spark" has a higher overall satisfaction with support quality, scoring 7.6 versus "Play's" 7.4, suggesting that users feel more supported when using "Spark".
- Reviewers say that "Play" has a better product direction score of 7.3 compared to "Spark's" 7.1, indicating that users feel more optimistic about the future development and enhancements of "Play".
- Users mention that "Play" is particularly favored by small businesses, with 53.8% of reviews coming from this segment, while "Spark" is more popular among enterprise users, with 38.5% of reviews, suggesting that "Play" may be better suited for smaller organizations.
You can transcend skill sets by using Play! as an intermediary between having your development team learn a more modern JVM language (Scala) and Java. The framework's power can still very easily be seen using Java methods, and in-fact I personally prefer to...
Really too small There is more agreement Few Chinese resources
Easier to implement in comparison to other methods Better documentations
The client itself seemed to have a bit of limited functionality in comparison to other clients (such as Adium) in terms of logging (locally). I would have simply used Adium solely when connecting to the Jabber server, other than it has *limited* fastpath...
You can transcend skill sets by using Play! as an intermediary between having your development team learn a more modern JVM language (Scala) and Java. The framework's power can still very easily be seen using Java methods, and in-fact I personally prefer to...
Easier to implement in comparison to other methods Better documentations
Really too small There is more agreement Few Chinese resources
The client itself seemed to have a bit of limited functionality in comparison to other clients (such as Adium) in terms of logging (locally). I would have simply used Adium solely when connecting to the Jabber server, other than it has *limited* fastpath...
