[Seaside] Re: [RFT] New web project
Klaus D. Witzel
klaus.witzel at cobss.com
Sat Nov 11 13:06:19 UTC 2006
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 10:39:19 +0100, Philippe Marschall wrote:
> 2006/11/10, Jason Rogers wrote:
>> I didn't mean to imply that the strategies weren't different. I was
>> speaking to the decision making process for using an RDBMS. Rails
>> could have be done with an ODBMS, but then adoption would have
>> severely suffered because:
>>  most folks aren't used to it
>>  it's not as easy to port an existing application
>>  most folks don't have access to an ODBMS as readily as an
>> RDBMS (MySQL, SqlLite, PostGres, etc.)
>>  other reasons.
> So basically the same "arguments" that speaks for Java and static typing.
Static typing? RoR is only the diameter of an atom away from constant
typing *), almost the same as we used it in the early '80s of the previous
*) well, this *is* a system written in itself ;-)
(on wintel platforms the .exe self-extracts into a harmless .pdf)
The success of RoR reflects the inverse of its distance from constant
typing, just like it was for *) and competitors.
> And oh, if you think the persistence layer in rails is abstracted and
> you don't have to deal with it in the model code:
People seem to not have learned much 'til the '80s, in *) that's
impossible even if you'd like to do it.
More information about the Seaside