Rob Hudson wrote: > I've heard the buzz and watched a few videos of how easy it seems to > use. Have you been learning Ruby then also? Is there a Python > equivalent of Rails? :)
There is no Python equivalent of Rails, so I'm learning Ruby. I haven't had the patience to sit through the videos yet, though. SQLobject is supposed to be a Python equivalent of ActiveRecord. ActiveRecord is the part of Rails that maps SQL databases into objects. AR seems to work pretty well. What I've learned so far: 1. It's really easy to follow tutorials in Rails, but in my first real project, I've spent a long time learning which of the zillions of available methods (in the OO sense) can do exactly what I want. There usually is one, but it's usually hard to find. 2. Getting the data definition right is still hard, and Rails won't help you there at all. 3. Ugly web pages are still easier than pretty web pages, and Rails only gives you minimal assistance there. I don't mean to sound negative. ActiveRecord, as I said, is a brilliant db wrapper, assuming your db schema are right (mine weren't). ActionPack's router (maps URLs to controllers) is so well designed that I haven't had to look at it yet. The whole paradigm that Rails owns the project's file layout is attractive too. I spent an hour learning where everything goes (including pieces I haven't touched yet like stylesheets and custom javascript) and now I don't have to bother planning it out. Rails' pervasive use of the MVC pattern works well too. Ruby itself is ugly but powerful. Not as ugly as Perl, but it feels more powerful. I did an upgrade from 0.11.1 to 0.12.1 mid-project, and I had to fix zero lines of code because of it. That's nice too. -- Bob Miller K<bob> kbobsoft software consulting http://kbobsoft.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
