2008. 03. 12, szerda keltezéssel 11.12-kor Greg Donald ezt írta: > 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. hey, we had a conversation about this a while back, and I'm still not convinced about RoR being 'better'. it has several cool ideas, which some php frameworks also follow now (and a few that would be cool in php frameworks but not yet implemented), but I strongly think that Ruby as a language just plain sucks ;) greets, Zoltán Németh > > 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
