However, as far as I could tell, Rails now makes it really hard to
deviate from RESTful approach, and that forces me, the newbie, to
stick to it. I
This just described why I think scaffolding is bad. It indirectly forces newcomers to do things a specific way. If you use the scaffolding, you start building controllers based off the code there. If you learned to create a controller and views without the scaffolding, you'd be more free to do things as you see fit.
Railes substitues proper "getting started" documentation for scaffolded code generation which makes it really tough on newcomers. People who've been doing Rails as long as I have don't really care because we don't use scaffolding. However, I work with newbies all the time and it's much easier to start them on Rails 1.x and move to Rails 2.0 and REST later. The original scaffold generator was very good for explaining how controllers work with models and views. link_to used a hash and not a named route. Named routes are cool, but they are confusing to a newbie. Same with respond_to.
The only upshot for Rails 2.0 scaffolding is that it's much more production-ready.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk@... To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe@... For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
