Tim Churches wrote: > David "Stratton" Guest wrote: > >> I'll give the movie four stars. >> > But what did Margaret think of it? > We'll have to wait and see. More importantly, Tim, what did you think of it ?
Both Django and Rails look impressive. Having a basic understanding of python, I thought Django might be the thing for me but Ruby code reads cleanly and as Hansson noted even designers could have a go at doing some basic tweaking. Hansson himself is very impressive. I think what he has done encapsulates what is necessary for a successful open source project. He is smart, articulate, well versed in his field and has a pretty good idea of where he is going. In an even older movie (http://media.rubyonrails.org/video/rubyonrails.mov) he describes what he wanted to do in BaseCamp. His goal was to make the simplest thing possible that would work and then make it even simpler. This minimalistic framework allowed maximum flexibility and is perhaps something that gnumed and other open source medical projects could take on board. I was absent last week when everybody was pounding the keyboards but to me the state of play is that a new project as suggested by Tony E, would have to be open sourced. A proprietary project will almost certainly not succeed since its priorities must become the same as those of commercial parties and hence we will be denied access to the components needed to do the things we want. More importantly the new project needs a clear vision of what is to be achieved. It needs a leader who can articulate that. I agree that Horst is not that man and Ian also has many other commitments. I think therefore at this stage we are stuck. Perhaps while we are waiting around for a solution we can assist Ian in defining the minimum requirements for a medical program suitable for an Australian GP surgery (and perhaps then tossing out a few). Where's your wiki for that again Ian? > that may have pay-offs later). I personally prefer the Django and > Turbogears approaches of defining classes for data objects, rather than > flat or relational database tables - it seems like a more modern and > flexible. > But doesn't Rails actually generate the classes from the database (or perhaps) vice versa? The aim is to avoid doing the same work twice. > The real test will be embellishing the generated scaffolding code - and > that is to come as time permits. > Bloody time. There should be more of it. David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
