On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Edmond Kachale <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 > > Wow what a good read -- 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.
