Scott,
It seems you find security in structure,
and that is clearly a good thing. Let me try to answer your concerns one by one
to give you my perspective.
- Yes,
it is know for simplicity. (BUT) No… that is over simplification of
the topic. Ruby does encapsulation, inheritance, yada, yada. The
simplicity is well formed even if it’s not the common design pattern
for solving issues. Simplicity alone is over simplification of what it
provides.
- Shorter
typing… I agree that is not a big deal. Yet, less code and faster
development! That is something worth getting. When your competition
delivers in less time than you with an interface that works and delivers
the same reports then you might see the advantage or you might start
loosing income. It’s just a fact of economics that this is good for
competition. It can be good for you or good for the other guys. Now, I to find
the blog example obtuse. If all web development were on that level then we
would loose our market to the high school wiz who spends his spare time showing
uncle Jones what he can do. Applications are more complex than that, so
that I also agree. Yet, it helps to have things help where they can help.
- If
you don’t want a framework that thinks for you, then why do you want
ColdFusion? Seems like you should go to Java or Pearl even. There is nothing wrong with
generating solid code in an automated fashion. In fact using Active
Records the point isn’t that the framework thinks for you. The point
is that you design the database and the field naming is actually the
program that generates days worth of coding instantaneously. Sure, there
are other toos that do this. Yet another one of the issues is having newer
developers “ramp up”. In other words having a language new
guys can jump into that will carry them from the simple to the complex.
Structure without simplicity can be dangerous in it’s own right.
This argument that people are building tools just for the “upper
class” of developers is a joke. The truth is they don’t want
to take the time (or don’t have the time legitimately) to invest in
making a more flexible tool. That is OK… but that is the point of
Ruby. With that said, currently you have to know a good deal about
databases and a good deal about programming structure (like what is MVC)
to get on the ramp with Ruby and be safe. So don’t over simplify
what it is because the new guy isn’t going to get it when he starts
coding either. It will take time to get “good” even in RoR.
That community has stated over and over that if someone is a fresh
developer perhaps starting with CF would be the better entry point.
- Again
you would shorten CF for the same reasons your using CF. This is called
the information age because technology keeps pushing us to learn something
new. It’s a pain but we can accept it or complain about that fact.
Tools keep simplifying and speeding things up. Yet it seems in our profit
minded society there isn’t another solution than working hour after
hour with the new stuff to get a better cut. The universal economic equality
societies haven’t figured it out yet either using technology. So if
we are going to be in the computer world then we are victims of our own
choosing. How many times have we heard Ben Forta state how much shorter
the code is in CF to ASP or Java? How many times have we compared development
times? Perhaps I am just not getting your last point.
Conclusion:
A. You are either developing simple applications
to start with or complex. If it is simple then we would benefit by some of the
features of Rails. (Less coding, Less time, faster valid bug free code.) If it
is complex then we would benefit by having common code generated for us around
a predictable structure. Then we can embellish the application with our
expertise and focus on the advanced needs of the application rather than
messing around with the mundane and routine.
Sincerely,
John Farrar
SOSensible
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Barnes
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005
3:35 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Ruby on
Rails for CF
1. Let me get this right,
there is talk of using RoR concept for CFMX, a language well known for its
simplicity?
2. I've watched RoR, I've
even played with it, and the only thing i can see benefits for its well...
shorter typing? (i'm also slightly nervous by examples like the blog one where
it has direct access to db without any buffer between).
3. I dunno, maybe i too am in
the field of "i don't get it RoR at all" but it just seems like we
are expecting frameworks to think for us now aswell as provide short cuts to
our trivial workloads.
4. Call me old fashion but if
you need to shorten CFML down even further, then why not revert back to a CFTAG
solution thats got your own vocab?
On 9/28/05, Marlon
Moyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
John,
The feeling that I get from this discussion is that most
participants
don't know anything more about the framework other than the name.
They're offering some educated guesses about what RoR might be, but I
don't get the feeling that they've ever used it.
I would suggest that the first step everyone interested should take is
to install Ruby and Rails and go through these tutorials:
Rolling with Rails:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/01/20/rails.html
4 Days on rails:
http://rails.homelinux.org/
After these tutorials, I think everyone would have a better grasp of
what Rails is.
On 9/27/05, John Farrar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
On Behalf
> Of John Paul Ashenfelter
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 3:08 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Ruby on Rails for CF
>
>
> On 9/25/05, John Farrar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Well, that sounds like an interesting implementation. One of the
Rails
> rants
> > is to not put config files as such into XML.
>
> That's true, but misses have the point -- the config files that Rails
> uses are written using YAML instead of XML. For most configuration
> purposes, they are pretty equivalent except YAML requires a lot less
> typing :)
>
> JOHN:
> So it's less automated scripting created by the generator? Do I understand
> that? Somehow the less typing, and the lower portability seem to be the
> questions that would generate in my mind.
>
> The cool about RoR is it does so much. Duplicating RoR tit for tat would
be
> contrary to the development principles of the creators of RoR. I would
like
> to see the good benefits built one at a time and the more we get built and
> the more portable it is the more everyone benefits. The big brain freeze
in
> the CF community seems to be build it all or nothing. That is crazy!
>
> I would still like to see some work go in that direction. Until there is a
> community effort my personal journey is already under way. Perhaps things
> like YAML are better than doing XML in CF. Yet, CF is a marketed product
and
> definitely not open source. That in some ways is one of the down sides of
CF
> from an honest take. If we all forked out the bucks for enterprise then we
> could build some universal Java tool that achieved YAML like functionality
> that gave us less typing.
>
> I am working on some simple "metaBeans" that use an XML
configuration to get
> some of those things accomplished for CF development. There are 101 ways
to
> do things that range from wrong way to best way for this situation. My
> project won't be the ultimate only way to do things. Yet, it sure beats
> waiting for a group of guys to jump in and build CFoR in complete form or
do
> nothing.
>
> Therefore, this is just an open offer for anyone who is interested to join
> in. I am not going to beat the drum for help, that just wears out the
> drummer and wastes time on promotion that can go into building a project!
In
> fact my beans are under way, and showing off the basic concept as part of
> our MUG meeting tonight.
>
> Thanks for the insight, it's appreciated. Sometimes I may take a couple of
> rounds to see things that are obvious... so please come around again if
you
> see I missed something from your perspective.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John Farrar
> SOSensible
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words
'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email.
>
> CFCDev is run by CFCZone ( www.cfczone.org)
and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com).
>
> CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon
> http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm
>
> An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
>
>
>
--
Marlon
"And I Sleep, and I dream of the person I might have been, and I'll be
free again
And I Speak, like someone who's been to the highest peaks, and back again
And I Swear, that my grass is greener than anyones, until I believe again"
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words
'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org)
and supported by CFXHosting (
www.cfxhosting.com).
CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon
http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
--
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.mossyblog.com
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
[email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the
email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting
(www.cfxhosting.com).
CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon
http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com).
CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon
http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
|
