This is the typical "rails" response. Rails will make you a better programmer by teaching you the right design patterns, etc. Of course, it does indeed give you a proper structure to building a web service and can be quite educational. However, it can make life difficult once you start straying from "their way" even if you know exactly what you're doing for even simple things like mapping to a legacy DB with schema intact (not gonna happen). Conventions over configuration is nice but it requires some stability.
Part of the problem is the leadership. They take the stance, "you bastards are doing it wrong" if you want to do things a little different.
The community almost split when they managed to swallow Merb and keep Rails. It's toned down quite a bit but that negativity definitely carried over from the early days and infects the community (swearing in presentations and porn references, etc.).
But these thinking aids aren't exactly radical paradigm shifts that will expand your mind and make you a significantly better programmer for the rest of your days. Rails is one of the most influential frameworks and did a lot to advance the field but now there are other frameworks that are much easier to learn and get a functional web service started.
So saying dissenters are slow to learn, stubborn or haven't been writing tests really doesn't do anyone a service and doesn't make anything clearer, sorry.
>it can make life difficult once you start straying from "their way" even if you know exactly what you're doing for even simple things like mapping to a legacy DB with schema intact (not gonna happen)
Yikes, unfortunately this knocks rails off of my to-try list. I've got a non-web application with an unusual, but by no means bad, schema. I've found it makes a good measuring stick for frameworks/tools. I have nothing against doing things in the way of a particular framework, but I have existing code to bring to the party too, if something isn't going to play nice I ignore it. I can't live with building something that exists in isolation. Its either not going to work with what I have, or hold me back when I want to build on top of it with something else.
> However, it can make life difficult once you start straying from "their way" even if you know exactly what you're doing for even simple things like mapping to a legacy DB with schema intact (not gonna happen).
class Account < ActiveRecord::Base
set_table_name "tbl_accts"
has_many :posts, :class_name => "Post", :foreign_key => "postid"
end
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
set_table_name "tbl_posts"
belongs_to :account, :class_name => "Account", :foreign_key => "postid"
end
#Account.first.posts.create(:title => "test", :body => "test")
that's almost like child's play(code is not tested, but it looks like that.. and i'm pretty sure it's sitting there quite a while)..
> Conventions over configuration is nice but it requires some stability.
if you were to compare this with an agnostic framework with drop-in, you have to set everything. with rails, you just gonna say "oh, this isn't default so i have to explicitly set this".. or "oh, this is no longer default so i have to set this".. it's just a convention.. if you want to use rails in an unconventional way, by all means do it, you just have to know more about its internals if you intend to do this -- this makes sense when you think about it(you don't want to be hacking hard on a piece of software you don't really understand, you're going to want to know what you're doing so that you have a good idea when some unexpected problem arises).
>Part of the problem is the leadership. They take the stance, "you bastards are doing it wrong" if you want to do things a little different.
if you did that and decided there's really nothing out there that can solve your problem, they you can just implement it however you want, rails is very configurable, but really, you're just limited to what ruby can do..
>So saying dissenters are slow to learn, stubborn or haven't been writing tests really doesn't do anyone a service and doesn't make anything clearer, sorry.
i'm sorry, did the article speak to you this way? are you a girl where you might be giving meaning to what's actually being said?
Part of the problem is the leadership. They take the stance, "you bastards are doing it wrong" if you want to do things a little different.
The community almost split when they managed to swallow Merb and keep Rails. It's toned down quite a bit but that negativity definitely carried over from the early days and infects the community (swearing in presentations and porn references, etc.).
But these thinking aids aren't exactly radical paradigm shifts that will expand your mind and make you a significantly better programmer for the rest of your days. Rails is one of the most influential frameworks and did a lot to advance the field but now there are other frameworks that are much easier to learn and get a functional web service started.
So saying dissenters are slow to learn, stubborn or haven't been writing tests really doesn't do anyone a service and doesn't make anything clearer, sorry.