« Return to Thread: Is the rails 2.0 scaffold system philosophically ( not technically? ) broken?

Re: Is the rails 2.0 scaffold system philosophically ( not t

by Fred-117 :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View in Thread


I think part of the problem is that "scaffolding" should not be part
of any Rails developer's vocabulary.  Scaffolding is too limiting and
"opinionated" to be useful in 99% of real-world applications.  Not to
mention all the RESTful issues that David A. Black has already
mentioned.  You can't really be RESTful AND be scaffolding.

In my humble opinion, "scaffolding" is the marketing tool to convince
people to check Rails out.  I know it worked on me a few years back.
But, for most, it will quickly become forgotten.

Just my thoughts.

On Mar 3, 9:42 am, "David A. Black" <dbl...@...> wrote:

> Hi --
>
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, dankelley wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:47 am, "Brian Hogan" <bpho...@...> wrote:
> >>  it's much easier
> >> to start them on Rails 1.x and move to Rails 2.0 and REST later.
>
> > This suggestion worries me a little, because I have found that the
> > conversion is not simple.
>
> > If version 2.0 is compellingly superior to 1.x, then newbies should
> > start there.  (Using the latest stable version is a long-standing
> > tradition in software, because it is effective.)  Nothing in this long
> > and useful discussion thread suggests that the RoR developers are
> > inclined to add the feature that is being discussed to an upcoming
> > version.  And so there is a simple choice: use RoR 2.0 as it is, or
> > choose another framework.  (This second option is not meant to be
> > heretical; newbies should be aware that there are alternatives.)
>
> Keep in mind, though, that Rails 2.0 is in this respects a superset of
> 1.x. You don't have to use the RESTful facilities if you don't want to
> (and you certainly don't have to use the scaffolding). I would agree
> with Brian in spirit but I'd put it slightly differently: it's easier
> to start with the non-REST stuff and then learn the REST stuff, but
> all of this can be done in the context of 2.0, i.e., it's not
> specifically a 1.x vs. 2.0 thing.
>
> In training people in Rails, I definitely do not start with REST and
> resources. map.resources is essentially a macro that creates a bunch
> of named routes for you -- so if you don't know what a named route is,
> you can only do it in a black-box and parrot-like way. Learning named
> routes doesn't make much sense until you understand routes, and routes
> don't make sense until you know the basics of the request cycle... and
> so forth. So I would never introduce someone to Rails by telling them
> to write map.resources in routes.rb and trying to proceed from there.
>
> David
>
> --
> Upcoming Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
>    ADVANCING WITH RAILS, April 14-17 2008, New York City
>    CORE RAILS, June 24-27 2008, London (Skills Matter)
> Seehttp://www.rubypal.comfor details. Berlin dates coming soon!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

 « Return to Thread: Is the rails 2.0 scaffold system philosophically ( not technically? ) broken?