fuzzylollipop wrote:
Paul Boddie wrote:
In various open source circles, the mere usage of 1.0 may indicate some
kind of stability, but not necessarily maturity, or at least the desire
of the developers to persuade users that the code is ready for them to
use.
nope in GENERAL usage,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was initially leaning towards Rails due to maturity,
but the most recent version of TurboGears seem to have
fixed a lot of the ad hoc feeling I got from previous
versions. But I'm still very much up in the air.
Thanks,
Ken
I've found that familiarity with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ SqlObject allows working with the DB tables without
using SQL itself.
Rails has ActiveRecord ORM, which IMO has nicer and simpler
syntax than SQLObject. Rails has migrations, TB - not (Migrations is
versioning system for evolving database schema)
+ Likely to be
Jaroslaw Zabiello [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ SqlObject allows working with the DB tables without
using SQL itself.
Rails has ActiveRecord ORM, which IMO has nicer and simpler
syntax than SQLObject. Rails has migrations, TB - not (Migrations is
versioning system
Jaroslaw Zabiello wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ SqlObject allows working with the DB tables without
using SQL itself.
Rails has ActiveRecord ORM, which IMO has nicer and simpler
syntax than SQLObject. Rails has migrations, TB - not (Migrations is
versioning system for evolving
Jaroslaw Zabiello a écrit :
Python is maybe faster, but with YARM (which is not stable yet) Ruby
will be about 10x faster. YARM is full virtual machine like Java.
Google doesn't find YARM and so, YARM does not exist. Care to provide an
URL or something?
--
Paul Boddie wrote:
fuzzylollipop wrote:
uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit
Rails might be older than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0
officially.
It can't be called mature' by any defintition.
Version numbers are a fairly useless general metric of project
maturity,
Christophe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Google doesn't find YARM and so, YARM does not exist. Care to provide an
URL or something?
it's YARV - http://www.atdot.net/yarv/
--
Lawrence - http://www.oluyede.org/blog
Nothing is more dangerous than an idea
if it's the only one you have - E. A.
Ray wrote:
fuzzylollipop wrote:
uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit
Rails might be older than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0
officially.
It can't be called mature' by any defintition.
But at least in most developers' perception ... snip
nobody is talking about perception
fuzzylollipop wrote:
Paul Boddie wrote:
fuzzylollipop wrote:
uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit
Rails might be older than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0
officially.
It can't be called mature' by any defintition.
Version numbers are a fairly useless general
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:42:47 -0300, Jorge Godoy wrote:
TG supports SQL Alchemy as well. With SQL Alchemy I believe you'll have a
better experience than with Rails' ORM.
I would not be so sure. I have tried to work with SQL Alchemy (using
Pylons) and I have been disappointed. :( It's syntax
On 31 Aug 2006 08:24:29 -0700, Adam Jones wrote:
In moving to SQLAlchemy it would pick up not only a migration system but
also a much more flexible abstraction system due to the use of a Data
Mapper pattern instead of the Active Record pattern.
What is the advantage of Data Mapper? I cannot
On 31 Aug 2006 08:24:29 -0700, Adam Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jaroslaw Zabiello wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ SqlObject allows working with the DB tables without
using SQL itself.
Rails has ActiveRecord ORM, which IMO has nicer and simpler
syntax than SQLObject. Rails
On 8/31/06, Jorge Vargas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 08:24:29 -0700, Adam Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that is the most important part of TG, taking the best of
the best, and letting the framework adapt and morphe.
for example noone plan to move to SA, 0.1 came out a
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 23:31 +0200, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
On 8/31/06, Jorge Vargas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 08:24:29 -0700, Adam Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone ones said on the mailing list TG is the Ubuntu of web
frameworks, and I think I'll add and you can strip
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 09:04 -0700, Paul Boddie wrote:
SkunkWeb (3.4.0), Zope (2.9.4 and 3.2.1), Plone (2.5), Karrigell (2.3),
CherryPy (2.2.1), Spyce (2.1), QP (1.8), Cymbeline (1.3.1), Django
(0.95), Webware (0.9.1), Pylons (0.9.1), TurboGears (0.8.9), PyLucid
(v0.7.0RC4), Paste (0.4.1),
Someone ones said on the mailing list TG is the Ubuntu of web
frameworks, and I think I'll add and you can strip down the kernel and
it wont break :)
But that is not really true. If you use Cheetah instead of Kid, you
lose out: No widgets,
Untrue. Even though I don't use widgets
Paul Boddie wrote:
fuzzylollipop wrote:
Paul Boddie wrote:
fuzzylollipop wrote:
uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit
Rails might be older than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0
officially.
It can't be called mature' by any defintition.
Version numbers
Sam Smoot wrote:
big rant snipped since Google Groups has what I responding to:
So if you decide to reply, might I suggest spending a few minutes with
Google to get your facts straight next time? Oh, and keeping an eye on
the actual topic might be a good idea too.
I got my facts straight,
fuzzylollipop wrote:
I got my facts straight, Ruby is not tested in production environments.
That's odd... it's running bank websites, credit-card processing, high
traffic sites like ODEO and Penny-Arcade. Seems pretty production to
me.
And I am speaking from a BIG internet site scale.
Yes
On 8/31/06, BJörn Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/31/06, Jorge Vargas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 08:24:29 -0700, Adam Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that is the most important part of TG, taking the best of
the best, and letting the framework adapt and
[comp.lang.ruby snipped]
Ray wrote:
Paul Boddie wrote:
So actual maturity isn't important when using a technology: it's
perceived maturity that counts, right?
Well depends on counts in what sense. Counts as in the managers up
there perceive something as mature, despite proofs of the
Paul Boddie a écrit :
[comp.lang.ruby snipped]
Ray wrote:
I've met a number of
people who've told me they'd program in Eiffel if they could. And hey,
perhaps in its day Eiffel *was* the best OO language out there.
Certainly it looked cleaner than C++! :)
So why don't they? Management
Paul Boddie wrote:
snip
Sure. Just get certified on whatever today's middle management are
advocating, spend a few years working with that stuff, then repeat the
process for the next generation of middle management - it can certainly
make money for people who don't seek any meaning in what
Ray wrote:
It can certainly make money--true. Don't seek any meaning in what they
do?! You're just accusing a lot of honest hardworking people to be
mindless drones there. We have feelings too, you know :(
Well, I'm sorry for the unintentional insult. However, I've come to
believe that some
Paul Boddie wrote:
Ray wrote:
(snip)
We're a Java shop so
our developers are trained in Java, Struts, Tomcat, etc. Any switch to
a dynamic language will be a huge change. However it baffles me that
they are open to at least a PoC in Rails. but when I suggested Python,
they went: nah we're
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Paul Boddie wrote:
Ray wrote:
(snip)
We're a Java shop so
our developers are trained in Java, Struts, Tomcat, etc. Any switch to
a dynamic language will be a huge change. However it baffles me that
they are open to at least a PoC in Rails. but when I
Adam Jones wrote:
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Paul Boddie wrote:
Ray wrote:
(snip)
We're a Java shop so
our developers are trained in Java, Struts, Tomcat, etc. Any switch to
a dynamic language will be a huge change. However it baffles me that
they are open to at least a PoC in Rails. but
Robert Kern wrote:
You might be. No one else in the thread is.
What are you saying? That my perception that RoR is mature is wrong? I
never even said that was mine. That was what I got from talking to a
lot of developers whose main language is neither Python nor Ruby, while
I was trying to
Ray wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
You might be. No one else in the thread is.
What are you saying? That my perception that RoR is mature is wrong?
No, that the part of your message that I quoted was wrong. Specifically, we're
talking of perception here. No one else here is talking about the
Hi allIt might be interesting to watch the videos about Django and Rails (http://www.djangoproject.com/snakesandrubies/). Django makes a good impression, although I would not agree with all of their arguments (eg. templating language, ajax). Most striking, though, is the difference in attitude!
Ray wrote:
(snip)
Sadly, there are more Java guys who know about Ruby than Python,
despite the fact that Python predates Ruby by quite a few years...
FWIW, Python is somewhat older than Java too...
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, I don't intend this to be a flame war, please.
Then avoid crossposting to both c.l.ruby and c.l.python !-)
(BTW, fu2 c.l.python).
Python
and Ruby are the only two languages I'd willingly work in
(at least amongst common languages), and TurboGears and
Rails
Ray wrote:
fuzzylollipop wrote:
uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit
Rails might be older than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0
officially.
It can't be called mature' by any defintition.
Version numbers are a fairly useless general metric of project
maturity, taken in
As I read in another post on this thread, do some initial scoping out
of either framework and pick the one that seems to suit your way of
thinking/coding the best. If you scan over some sample code on the
projects' websites you should get a basic idea of what they will be
like.
Although a bit
fuzzylollipop wrote:
uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit
Rails might be older than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0
officially.
Wow that's a lot of FUD, especially since you're beating up on Rails
for it's docs and maturity, when I doubt (but couldn't prove)
turbogears comes close.
In my understanding, which relies completely on the judgements of
co-workers regarding the rails side of the debate, TurboGears is more
flexible. Tasks which fall inside the scope of Rails' opinion are
probably easier there, but anything outside of what Rails was built to
do is harder than
Paul Boddie wrote:
But at least in most developers' perception, it is (not necessarily in
the absolute sense, but perhaps relative to Django or Turbogears).
Mind, it doesn't even need to be true, we're talking of perception
here.
So actual maturity isn't important when using a
On 8/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, I don't intend this to be a flame war, please. Python
and Ruby are the only two languages I'd willingly work in
(at least amongst common languages), and TurboGears and
Rails seem roughly equivalent.
I'm much more knowledgable
Ray wrote:
Paul Boddie wrote:
But at least in most developers' perception, it is (not necessarily in
the absolute sense, but perhaps relative to Django or Turbogears).
Mind, it doesn't even need to be true, we're talking of perception
here.
So actual maturity isn't important when using a
First, I don't intend this to be a flame war, please. Python
and Ruby are the only two languages I'd willingly work in
(at least amongst common languages), and TurboGears and
Rails seem roughly equivalent.
I'm much more knowledgable about Python, but that's a minor
issue--I've been intending to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ Built-in Rubydoc system would make documenting the
system easier. (IMHO, developers almost always
underestimate the need for good documentation that
is written along withe the system.) Is there a
Python doc system that has received Guido's blessing
yet?
afaik,
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S. If I wanted to provide an image by streaming the
file data directly over the connection, rather than by
referring to an image file, how would I do that? I'd
like to build code that would allow images to be assembled
into a single-file
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like you mixing comparisons.
Ruby:
+ More mature system. More stable? More features?
uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit
Rails might be older than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0
officially.
It can't be called mature' by any defintition.
+ Much
fuzzylollipop wrote:
uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit
Rails might be older than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0
officially.
It can't be called mature' by any defintition.
But at least in most developers' perception, it is (not necessarily in
the absolute sense, but perhaps
Ray wrote:
fuzzylollipop wrote:
uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit
Rails might be older than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0
officially.
It can't be called mature' by any defintition.
But at least in most developers' perception, it is (not necessarily in
the absolute sense,
46 matches
Mail list logo
