> The decision could have been based solely on business grounds, not technical > grounds. > > People have heard of Rails, there is 'brand awareness' for Rails, so you > more likely to be able to get clients. Or at least it would be easier > convincing them that Rails is what they want rather than something called > Grails that no one has heard of. Even the dimmest PHB has heard of Rails and > that it is *HOT* > > Not saying that there aren't technical reasons to reject Grails but on > purely business grounds Rails is king. So your former bosses decision might > not be a reflection as to the technical merits of Grails.
When it comes to performance, how is Rails? Like if I were to design a raw Spring/Hibernate app, which I'm not going to... but let's say I did. What is the comparative performance with something like that, even though it probably isn't a fair comparison. Also, how well to do the tests run? Imagine a system with a few thousand unit/integration tests. How long will it take to get all the tests to run? Is it hard to build cron-like events in rails/ruby? Can I do that inside of my app where it's hosted? In the java world, we have quartz to do this (and probably some others). Also, is it a good idea to use rails 3.0 even if it's in beta if the app is not going to production for awhile? Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
