[Catalyst] Why Catalyst instead of Ruby on Rails?

[Perrin Harkins]

On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 14:30 -0800, Philip Edelbrock wrote:
> + Finding ISPs with Rails support can be a hassle, and some stock 
> distros have 'broken' ruby installations (MacOS, RedHat, etc.).

The Perl binaries shipped on MacOS and RedHat are pretty strange too.
The RedHat ones have debugging and threads compiled in.  I usually
recommend people compile their own if they have a dedicated server.
It's a nice performance boost.

> + The pluralism thing is weird and sometimes confusing.  I understand 
> the rational and justification behind it, but in practice I'm not used 
> to having to refer to the same things in different pluralities based on 
> context.

The Rails plural table-naming convention does seem like one of the
stranger decisions in Rails.  It flies in the face of every schema I've
ever worked with.

- Perrin