Re: [OT] Not everything goes well in Ruby land :-)

On Jan 6, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:

> Scary stuff. I thought the Zed Shaw must be a complete raving loony  
> from this post, but then realized he wrote the Mongrel server. He  
> seems quite calm and rational in this interview:
>
> http://www.infoq.com/interviews/ruby-zed-shaw
>
> with not one swear word. It makes you wonder what happened in the  
> space of a month to make him so bitter (yeah well it's probably how  
> anyone can turn working in this industry!)
>
> Is Rails really to be compared with the .com bomb? What of Nitro/og  
> which doesn't seem to have had an update in 18 months?

   I figured out Rails was crap when I was getting FrontBase to work  
with it, and we found that Rails has all sorts of bugs because it  
considers:

  1.0

  and

  "1.0"

  To be equivalent, because that's what MySQL does. In fact, using  
anything but MySQL with Rails seems to lead to a lot of friction.

  That isn't what makes it crap though, what made it crap was the  
attitude from the Rails guys.

  That said, what I think WebObjects could steal from Rails is the  
whole concept of less configuration for the default behavior. There's  
all this stuff that a production-quality WO program has to implement  
that should really come pre-done. It's not a lot of code to pull the  
primary key out of a URL, fetch the relevant object, and pass it to a  
page component for display, but everyone seems to be constantly  
reinventing that wheel.

  Pierce