On 12/26/06, A. Pagaltzis <[email protected]> wrote:
Errm, right. That's why noone on the mailing lists uses anything but TT2 and DBIC, why the beginner's tutorials don't mention any other options, and why inquiries about these two tend to get answered very quickly.
Wasn't the case last time I checked, which I admit to have been over a year ago. Back then, it was "Catalyst's great because it lets you choose either TT2 or HTML::Mason or HTML::Template! To work out which you want, consider [... INSANE ROBOT MONKEY SPEAK...]" Also, the module documentation mostly consisted of "Er... this bit coming soon!" which I wouldn't have minded if the publicity machine hadn't already been turned on.
Of course, it's better to switch to a system where the "ORM" is built by people who say multi-column primary keys are bad for you and foreign keys are pointless. That's "opinionated". Like that certain "RDBMS" whose developers were also "opinionated", I guess, and used to very publically state that transactions are silly (and who needs subselects anyway?).
Hate seconded. I certainly don't wish to imply that RoR doesn't have buckets of hate, though I don't have enough experience with it to know where the hate lies. As for that "RDBMS", I was one of those laughing the loudest when the hurried work on those silly transactions meant that the previous world-beating benchmarks were dragged down to the level of other products with considerably more sensible designs. With version 5 they may actually get up to the feature set of a 15-year-old version of Oracle, though only by merging with another similarly-aged product (SAPDB). They'll still need to work on those horrid "reliability" and "data resilience" features that, for some reason, people keep demanding. -- Yoz
