[Catalyst] Why Catalyst instead of Ruby on Rails?

[Philip Edelbrock]

On Nov 12, 2005, at 4:16 AM, John Siracusa wrote:

> On 11/11/05 11:55 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I always use plural table names and singular class names, but I  
> agree that
> it's pretty draconian to make this convention a mandatory part of a
> framework.

You may have meant this, but just to be clear, almost nothing is  
mandatory in Rails.  There are just 'defaults'.  Most models (if you  
are going with the flow) are almost empty files because they assume  
things like the table name, an id column, and database connectivity  
as described in database.yml.  You can do things like connect to  
bazaar legacy tables, it's just that your model will look a bit  
messy. ;')


Phil