FWIW, I think the idea could be useful to some but doesn't belong in the Rails core. For me, Rails is an advanced server-side technology that is very good at a few things that every website needs.
Rails doesn't meet the demands of today's front-end UX world, and that's OK -- there are lots of other choices out there for front end technology (bootstrap being one of many). Personally, I actually think all of the non-essential gems should be removed from the rails new setup. (I'm assuming here that along with your feature we might see the twitter-bootstrap-rails gem become part of the default Gemfile). Rails isn't bootstrap, it's not CoffeeScript, it's not LESS or SASS. By putting those things into the default the community would be giving a sort of "blessed" status to those projects. To me that would be a bad move. (I also think sass-rails, jquery-rails, coffee-rails and turbolinks should all come out of the default rails new install) If you feel passionately about this tool that will let you generate bootstrap-flavored scaffolding, make a open source gem and gift your work to the community (just like all the people who've contributed to Rails have done too). That's what the whole modular Rubygem system is about. On Oct 16, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Claudio B. <claud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your replies. Opinionated feature idea demands opinionated > responses! > > Here are my thoughts: > > In response to Frank: > ---------------------------- > > I agree with you, good developers do not need any design or architecture to > be enforced. Indeed, Rails does not enforce anything: you can manually create > your own model, controller and view and use any HTML code you'd like to. > > Less experts developers, however, might be scared by the "blank slate" > experience, especially if they are new to Rails. That is why Rails provides > scaffold templates, so people who just want to see something fast "up and > running" can do so. > > My proposal is not to enforce any framework as part of Rails, just to give a > better experience to developers using scaffold generators. If you are not one > of them, then you have nothing to fear! > > In response to Abdelkader, Nicolas, Robert: > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I appreciate your feedback. You made good observations, and I'd like to reply > to them: > >> one could make some minor changes to the scaffold code so if a developer >> were to add bootstrap, foundation, or whatever framework to their project, >> the generated scaffold code would automatically have it's styles enhanced by >> the added framework. > > Robert, I'd love to do that, but unfortunately different CSS frameworks > require quite different HTML structure. For instance, Foundation is able to > style any <table> object, while Bootstrap require <table class="table">. On > the other hand, Bootstrap requires a <div class="container"> to apply > grid-styles, while Foundation does not. So simply editing the current HTML > template would not be enough. > >> Maybe we should only provide a better default CSS file. > > Nicolas, that is something that Abdelkader, Robert, you and I agree on: > something can/should be done about improving the existing scaffolding styles. > > My question is: can these styles be "good enough" so they can actually be > used (in production)? > > If the answer is NO, then we can as well leave them as they are, and agree > with Frank: it's not Rails' purpose to provide anything more than a bare > minimum HTML view. > > If the answer is YES, then scaffold.css would need to include a lot of > styles: tables, forms, responsiveness, lists and so on. This is why I > suggested Bootstrap, since it already includes all these styles. But still, > we can achieve the same purpose without Bootstrap, just by writing a longer > CSS file that includes a good amount of these styles. Abdelkader, Nicolas, > Robert, would this work for you? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > ---- Jason Fleetwood-Boldt t...@datatravels.com http://www.jasonfleetwoodboldt.com/writing All material (c) Jason Fleetwood-Boldt 2014. Public conversations may be turned into blog posts (original poster information will be made anonymous). Email ja...@datatravels.com with questions/concerns about this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
