[Catalyst] Bing!

[Jose Nyimi]

Have a look to what Java world thinks about RoR ;)
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=35202#177947

Some copy paste from the discussion:

* "Ruby is a mess. Not as bad as Perl/CPAN though ..."

* "Does Ruby on Rails have something analogous to web components (like
Tapestry or JSF)?
I think they consider a database table to be a web component ;)"

* Rails is extremely simplistic. This is of course also its greatest
strength. If you just look at the web part then you can compare that
mostly to raw servlets. There is no workflow framework, no good
validation (see below), no automatic conversion of input data to objects
like Spring does, etc. For me that is always pretty dissapointing
because I feel like I'm 10 years back in time. When I work in Rails I
always have this 'lets put a nice framework on top of this to make
things easier' feelingThat was common to do in the early 90s when we all
did that in our Perl/PHP/Java frameworks

Rdgs,
José.

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : catalyst-bounces at lists.rawmode.org 
> [mailto:catalyst-bounces at lists.rawmode.org] De la part de Kyle Maxwell
> Envoyé : samedi 13 août 2005 00:16
> À : catalyst at lists.rawmode.org
> Objet : Re: [Catalyst] Bing!
> 
> 
> I just wanted to present the other side of the 
> characterization of Ruby 
> on Rails that Sebastian Riedel made.  Here's some counterpoints:
> 
> * Rails is built as 5 separate components, each available 
> from RubyGems 
> (CPAN analogue).  They can be and are used separately, 
> although this is 
> not that common.
> * Model classes are *NOT* strictly bound to controllers.
> * You can use multiple view types.  At this point, eRb and 
> builder are 
> the documented ones.
> * Rails dispatcher "routes" is flexible, as it has just recently been 
> rewritten.  As to the example Sebastian made of index.html 
> requiring a 
> rewrite layer, in Rails, just put the index.html file in the public 
> directory and it automatically is on your site.
> * Ruby on Rails is extendable.  I have added tagging and file upload 
> support to ActiveRecord.  It was easy.
> * Multiple inheritance is considered an anti-pattern by many.  Ruby 
> supports module mix-ins, which give the benefits of multiple 
> inheritance 
> without some of the drawbacks.
> * Ruby is slower than perl.  You're right about that.  
> Hopefully Rails 
> helps spur the developement of Ruby 2, which will have a Java-like 
> bytecode VM.
> * Rails is both "all-in-wonder" and componentized.  I love the 
> all-in-one-ness, because the integration is flawless, and you 
> can go to 
> one site for the documentation and updates.
> 
> I'm using rails full-time, and it is all it's cracked up to be, with 
> these exceptions:
> * While a production server is incredibly easy, deployment 
> can sometimes 
> be a bit tricky to set up.
> * Sometimes the Ruby libraries are inadequate.  I ran into 
> this with PDF 
> generation.  Ruby is easy to extend with C libraries.  I 
> prefer to setup 
> PHP on the same server, and run stuff like PDF generation as a web 
> service off a different port.
> 
> -Kyle Maxwell
> 
>  > Well, i'm not really unpartial, but i'll try be fair. :)
>  >
>  > * First, Catalyst is no port of Rails, it has fundamental
>  > philosophical differences, Catalyst was built with CPAN in 
> mind, so  > you can easily have multiple views (TT/Mason...) 
> and models  > (DBIx::Class, Tangram...) in the same app.  > 
> Rails doesn't do that, controller classes are strictly bound 
> to model  > (table) classes, thats a bit like Maypole, but 
> split into two classes.  >  > * Catalyst's dispatcher is very 
> flexible, you can have all kinds of  > uri's, even regex is 
> supported while Rails sticks to the /class/  > 
> method/arg1/arg2/arg3 scheme, which requires a rewrite layer 
> to get  > fancy urls like /index.html (yes thats against 
> their own DRY slogan).  >  > * Catalyst just needs a small 
> glue to add more components, it's made  > to be extended, 
> especially through multiple inheritance, which Ruby  > 
> doesn't even support.  >  > * Rails is also slower, thats 
> because Ruby is generally much slower  > than Perl and 
> Catalyst has a much more optimized dispatcher.  >  > * Rails 
> documentation is much better (no surprise since they can work 
>  > fulltime on it)  >  > * Rails is a all-in-wonder package 
> including a orm and template  > system while Catalyst follows 
> the CPAN philosophy to split everything  > into small 
> packages.  >  >  > So to make it short, Rails is better 
> documented and very trendy  > (hyped) while Catalyst happens 
> to be faster and much more flexible.  >  >  > --  > sebastian 
>  >  >  > _______________________________________________
>  > Catalyst mailing list
>  > Catalyst at lists.rawmode.org
>  > http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
>  > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Catalyst mailing list
> Catalyst at lists.rawmode.org 
> http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/cata> lyst
> 
>