Re: Ruby on Rails (was Looping Search)
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2006
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 66796
interpreted = N
texte = Using, no. Experimenting, yes. I think John also said he was looking into it. I never cared for PHP since that was just another scripting language. PHP and WebDNA are the same from that perspective. Ruby on Rails is different though. One issue with Ruby on Rails is that one needs to know/learn Ruby (a language) and then learn Rails (a framework). Ruby is an object oriented language -- this is conceptually different from scripting languages in many respects. Rails is a framework. It basically sets up convenient places to put parts of your web application and gives a number of tools that tie the application to a database and provide some very useful built-in methods that make creating applications simple and adding features very, very easy. It strives to prevent code duplication (write once, use everywhere in your app -- they call it DRY for don't repeat yourself). The real kicker is that Rails makes it unbelievably easy to add lots of nice AJAX type functionality. Given that Rails is a framework, others are using it as a model to create frameworks in PHP, Python and other languages. I haven't seen any effort in WebDNA on this front to build a framework other than storebuilder and that is more of a generator than a framework that would work for any application. I was drawn to Rails when I saw some of the screencasts that showed how easy it was to create a blog for example. That was something that people on the WebDNA list had talked about putting together as an OS project. With Rails, a basic blog can be done in about fifteen minutes (assuming you've invested in the learning curve). Bill -----Original Message----- From: Clint Davis
Sent: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:11:24 -0500 To: "WebDNA Talk" Subject: Re: Ruby on Rails (was Looping Search) As a sidenote... Is anyone on the list using Ruby on Rails? I don't have any experience with it, but it's potential is very attractive. On 4/6/06 9:04 AM, "devaulw@onebox.com" wrote: > Back on the data structure, I just read last night about the "acts_as_tree" > model method in Rails. That seems like it would work really well to handle the > self-referential tree structure originally set out. Of course, you'd have to > be using Rails first. ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Using, no. Experimenting, yes. I think John also said he was looking into it. I never cared for PHP since that was just another scripting language. PHP and WebDNA are the same from that perspective. Ruby on Rails is different though. One issue with Ruby on Rails is that one needs to know/learn Ruby (a language) and then learn Rails (a framework). Ruby is an object oriented language -- this is conceptually different from scripting languages in many respects. Rails is a framework. It basically sets up convenient places to put parts of your web application and gives a number of tools that tie the application to a database and provide some very useful built-in methods that make creating applications simple and adding features very, very easy. It strives to prevent code duplication (write once, use everywhere in your app -- they call it DRY for don't repeat yourself). The real kicker is that Rails makes it unbelievably easy to add lots of nice AJAX type functionality. Given that Rails is a framework, others are using it as a model to create frameworks in PHP, Python and other languages. I haven't seen any effort in WebDNA on this front to build a framework other than storebuilder and that is more of a generator than a framework that would work for any application. I was drawn to Rails when I saw some of the screencasts that showed how easy it was to create a blog for example. That was something that people on the WebDNA list had talked about putting together as an OS project. With Rails, a basic blog can be done in about fifteen minutes (assuming you've invested in the learning curve). Bill -----Original Message----- From: Clint Davis Sent: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:11:24 -0500 To: "WebDNA Talk" Subject: Re: Ruby on Rails (was Looping Search) As a sidenote... Is anyone on the list using Ruby on Rails? I don't have any experience with it, but it's potential is very attractive. On 4/6/06 9:04 AM, "devaulw@onebox.com" wrote: > Back on the data structure, I just read last night about the "acts_as_tree" > model method in Rails. That seems like it would work really well to handle the > self-referential tree structure originally set out. Of course, you'd have to > be using Rails first. ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
devaulw@onebox.com
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
math on date? (1997)
Authenticate (1997)
Errata: WCS Newbie question (1997)
[quantity] - spoke too soon (1997)
[append] vs. [appendfile] delta + question? (1997)
Mac & Internet Explorer (2000)
Problems passing [SKU] with $Replace in 2.0 (1997)
Follow-Up to: Removing [showif] makes a big difference in speed (1997)
Max Record length restated as maybe bug (1997)
Quit revisited (1997)
And/or Search (1998)
Using Plug-In while running 1.6.1 (1997)
Busted at the Border (1998)
Don't do this! (was: Crashing Type 3) (1999)
Questions To Answer (1997)
Maybe off topic but how to charge (1997)
WebCat2b13MacPlugin - [math][date][/math] problem (1997)
Stumped (1999)
WC2f3 (1997)
best way to store prefs (1998)