Comments on: Others are leaving Ruby on Rails, as well. And it’s not going well. http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/143/ Archive from the trenches of the IT World Blog. Mon, 15 Nov 2010 03:47:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: ugg boots london http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/143/comment-page-1/#comment-105 ugg boots london Mon, 15 Nov 2010 03:47:19 +0000 http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/?p=63#comment-105 You can produce Rails stuff quickly, but a lot of times the end result simply doesn’t cut the mustard. While some level-headed Rubyists will point out that Rails was intended for X, Y and Z, the problem is that the vast Rails community keeps trying to sell it as the Alpha-and-Omega of web-development. You can produce Rails stuff quickly, but a lot of times the end result simply doesn’t cut the mustard. While some level-headed Rubyists will point out that Rails was intended for X, Y and Z, the problem is that the vast Rails community keeps trying to sell it as the Alpha-and-Omega of web-development.

]]> By: Nathan http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/143/comment-page-1/#comment-49 Nathan Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:53:49 +0000 http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/?p=63#comment-49 Yeah, I've seen Ruby on Rails abandoned at a few places because Rails dictates to rigidly (which is quite funny considering Ruby itself is to flexible). My personal pet peeve has always been ActiveRecord. Compare AR to Grails' GORM - GORM has all the benefits of AR, but provides a waste number of options to even cater for legacy databases - something AR specifically does not cater to. I don\'t mean to plug my own blog, but this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my "Productive vs. Effective" article here: http://nathan.crause.name/entries/programming/productive-vs-effective You can produce Rails stuff quickly, but a lot of times the end result simply doesn't cut the mustard. While some level-headed Rubyists will point out that Rails was intended for X, Y and Z, the problem is that the vast Rails community keeps trying to sell it as the Alpha-and-Omega of web-development. There\'s bound to be more stories like this, I'm afraid. Yeah, I’ve seen Ruby on Rails abandoned at a few places because Rails dictates to rigidly (which is quite funny considering Ruby itself is to flexible). My personal pet peeve has always been ActiveRecord. Compare AR to Grails’ GORM – GORM has all the benefits of AR, but provides a waste number of options to even cater for legacy databases – something AR specifically does not cater to.

I don\’t mean to plug my own blog, but this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my “Productive vs. Effective” article here: http://nathan.crause.name/entries/programming/productive-vs-effective

You can produce Rails stuff quickly, but a lot of times the end result simply doesn’t cut the mustard. While some level-headed Rubyists will point out that Rails was intended for X, Y and Z, the problem is that the vast Rails community keeps trying to sell it as the Alpha-and-Omega of web-development.

There\’s bound to be more stories like this, I’m afraid.

]]>