Re: More Impressions of Ruby on Rails

[Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>]

That is funny, Aaron.  I plan on making a couple more trips to B & N next week.

It seems that a database that's not properly normalized will cause problems for 
any object-relational mapping scheme, and there are some things that can't even 
be done by falling back to strait SQL, and you'll need RPG to fill in the gaps.

I don't know when I'll get around to doing anything in Rails, myself.  But 
there are a lot of good ideas in it that I think are appealing to Web 
application developers, particularly those struggling with J2EE.

Nathan.


----- Original Message ----
From: albartell <albartell@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 11:52:15 AM
Subject: Re: [WEB400] More Impressions of Ruby on Rails

> During the past few weeks I've been dropping by Barnes and Noble in the
evening, 
I have gone to B&N since this post began also and each time it has either
been AJAX or RoR books :-)  Too funny...


> Ruby's philosophy of "convention over configuration" makes sense to me. 
I think that simplicity is great.  The part I would have a problem with is
when I had to work around it - say I didn't create the database and instead
it was created by an RPG programmer w/o any DB imposed relationships built
in.  

I am hoping you pick up RoR and do a project with it because I would love to
hear your opinion after that so I could save myself from the pain :-)  

Aaron Bartell