Well there were a couple of frameworks, but I was trying to be framework-agnostic for a reason - there are a few that are quite heavy and load up a lot of files and libraries, even if they're not used - so as to make the job easier for the developer. Plus I didn't want to be labelled as a "oh he doesn't like framework x so he mustn't be good with it".etc. If I targeted any specific framework, people are bound to get defensive of their framework of choice, which detracts from what I wanted to convey.
Kirk On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Dave Bolton <[email protected]> wrote: > - Which frameworks are you targeting? > - Heavyweight in what sense? Resources? Concepts? Performance? > > With respect to Rails, I don't have a problem throwing it at small ideas -- > the concepts are easy and standard, and resource requirements are not so > onerous to make it unfeasible (in all senses of resources). > > I guess you could mean heavyweight in the sense of all the things Rails lets > you do out-of-the-box, but there's no compulsion to use them all, and I'd be > suprised if they changed the resource and performance equations so much to > make Rails no longer an option. > > So, put me in Dr Nic's "scales for the size of the project" bucket. > > Cheers, > Dave > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Torm3nt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Cheers for your input Dr Nic, >> >> I wasn't actually specifically targeting rails - rails 3.0 certainly >> looks to be much more enticing as far as frameworks goes as you'll be >> able to plug and play various libraries together, but not many >> frameworks do this =P >> >> >> Kirk >> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Dr Nic Williams <[email protected]> wrote: >> > People talk about "rails doesn't scale" and mean performance. What I >> > love >> > about Rails is that scales for the size of the project. You can start a >> > micro project today, and it easily evolves into a bigger project. >> > The single-file-contains-my-app frameworks aren't wrong or broken; >> > rather >> > they take away one of the oft-forgotten but awesome aspects of Rails: >> > you >> > and I both know where our next model or controller is going to go. The >> > generators know it. The IDEs/editors know it. >> > The heavy-weightedness of Rails will probably become optional as we move >> > to >> > 3.0 and beyond. >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Torm3nt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey all! >> >> >> >> I've recently been musing over the use of heavy frameworks (such as >> >> RoR) and how I'm beginning to see (in some cases) them being overused, >> >> mostly for the wrong purposes. In one instance I witnessed a Rails >> >> application for getting reports on a database. >> >> >> >> I've written my thoughts on this and would love to hear from some of >> >> the more intelligent people in this community, either of their own >> >> experiences or even a counter-argument =) >> >> >> >> http://www.kirkbushell.com/articles/using-the-right-tool-for-the-job >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Kirk Bushell >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Dr Nic Williams >> > Mocra - Premier iPhone and Ruby on Rails Consultants >> > w - http://mocra.com >> > twitter - @drnic >> > skype - nicwilliams >> > e - [email protected] >> > p - +61 412 002 126 or +61 7 3102 3237 >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
