Le 10 février 2011 08:54:03 UTC+2, amritpal pathak < [email protected]> a écrit :
> Including druapl,wordpress(Cms) and other frameworks like django what are > those things in web development that they cannot do but Ruby on Rails can > do?? > Please clear me this confusion!! > Thanking you. > Amritpal, Some geeks have given very good arguments and I would not want to spoil their responses. I have noticed the likes of *Peter Bell, Manoj Sachwani*and *Chris Kottom* (to mention but a few) have given unbiased arguments about the two. I would like us to add some spices.* Notice carefully how I use the words website and web applications/systems. ( For further details check this link http://bit.ly/fd4IGx.)* Web Application frameworks (WAF) are skeletons (frames) of the that is designed to support the *development* of web applications and web services. On the other hand, Content Management Systems (CMS) are templates designed to allow (often non-programming) users to *create and manage website content * with relative ease. WAFs are *programming-oriented* and are *primarily designed for software/web-application developers*. As such, they provide a flexible way of *adding code* to applications. CMSs are *content-management-oriented* and are *created primarily for users with little knowledge of web programming languages* like web designers. These provide a flexible way of *adding content* to the websites. If you want to develop a website with limited access to a database and very few interactions among classes, WAFs are not a good option for that. Think of a CMS in such cases. On the other hand, if you want to build web applications add some* coherent structure to your code; and make use of plugins, addons and libraries that shorten the development time** thereby avoid re-inventing the wheel*, then CMSs are not an option for that. Look for a WAF. Another aspect to note is that *CMSs are web developer's view of a website*and WAF is a web-application developer's view of the same. CMSs fail in cases where one is building a customised web application/system such as a electronic data system. They provide the developer a minimalist control over the application/system in such cases, which makes developers feel naturally constrained. On other hand, (though they don't fail but) WAFs are not good candidates for websites designed to just display some information such as news bulletins. Since most WAFs do not have a (non-programmer's) content management section, they sound so scaring to non-programmers. Of course, most software developers like adding a user-friendly CMS-like interfaces to their websites, but such interfaces are often times incapacitated(i.e have very limited options) and are not very common in web applications/systems. You may wish to note some CMSs have grown into WAFs (and/or the reverse), so the dividing line between the two is very slim. Some CMSs even raise questions as to whether their core functionality is to help with content management or Examples include Drupal and SilverStripe for PHP. Regards, --- Edmond Software Developer | Baobab Health Trust (http://www.baobabhealth.org/) | Malawi Cell: +265 999 465 137 | +265 881 234 717* ** An old dog does not hunt because of speed, but his endurance of the heart.* -- 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.
