Tim Churches wrote: > > > So, I am not asserting that Django or Turbogears are better than > Ruby-on-Rails, or that RoR is not the framework/language of choice for > an open primary care EMR/ER project. I am just saying that it might not > be wise to just take Horst's word for it. > I have also had a look at all 3 and the NASA video. All are very good and I suspect advantages/disadvantages may outweigh each other over the course of a large project such as ours. Again making the decision is more important than the actual decision.
Python is a plus, but as yet I can't find any libraries or bindings which Ruby lacks, and the learning curve from Python is very smooth. Ruby is more like 90% Python and 10% Perl (the good 10%) True, Rails is more 'constraining': it clearly maps out how certain things are done, this is a disadvantage where there is a single hacker or project governance is otherwise good (such as with NetEpi), but in our situation it's a big plus: if Rails is chosen, there are fewer things to argue about, so things move faster. With Turbogears we then have to then decide which templater, which ORM [SQLObject/SQLAlchemy, I find RoR's ActiveRecord better than either], and so on. Ian _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
