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

> 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.
For what it's worth, I don't think Rails is crap, nor do I think that  
guy's post should be representative of an entire community. The guy  
wrote Mongrel, so he's certainly not dumb, but he's clearly pretty  
bitter and, to me, his post loses most of its credibility due to its  
tone. He basically comes off a bit like a crazy person who happens to  
make a couple decent points.

Also, we use Rails with FrontBase on of our apps (though we had to had  
to patch the db "adaptor").  I don't recall if our patches were  
accepted back into the mainline or not, but it's been working pretty  
well for us so far.  I don't know if we just haven't hit the problems  
you have or if we actually patched it such that the problems you're  
seeing don't happen.

> That isn't what makes it crap though, what made it crap was the  
> attitude from the Rails guys.
I get this vibe, too ... Same thing from the Hibernate 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.
... coming to a Wonder framework near you very soon. We are using an  
"inspired-by-rails-routes/controllers" WO framework. Like you said,  
it's easy to do, but it's just not available by default. At least if  
you use Wonder that will be changing pretty soon.

ms