Re: More Impressions of Ruby on Rails

["Dave Odom" <Dave.Odom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What in the world can't be done by SQL when talking to a properly
designed RDBMS other then record-at-a-time processing which isn't using
a relational approach at all?

> > > nandelin@xxxxxxxxx 9/29/2006 12:01 >>>
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