On 3/12/08, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But then you'd end up with something like Ruby on Rails... and we all > know about Ruby on Rails *VOMIT*. You clearly don't know much about it or else you wouldn't be bashing it. Period. Just admit the fact that you're resistant to learn new, better ways of doing things and move on. On the other hand, if there's something in Rails you genuinely don't understand, I'll be happy to assist you with that particular understanding, off-list or wherever, free of charge. > Who wants to be stuck on a track when they can soar with the eagles. I dunno, why not ask the many Rails clone authors? I certainly don't see any Ruby programmers trying to copy ZF or Symphony. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_Configuration > > Interesting how the article promotes the ideas of both convention and > configuration co-existing so that one doesn't lose versatility. Thus, > one could infer that any good framework would allow both paradigms. Rails supports both naturally. It has configurable environments for development, testing, and production, all pre-configured for the most common cases. You can even create your own new environments if you have something that doesn't fit into dev/test/prod very easily. Complete versatility in every regard thanks to Ruby's meta-ness. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
