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

On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, dasil003 <gabrie...@...> wrote:
> I guess the Rails core team has become a little out of touch with the
> newbie developer.  But, frankly, that's a necessary step for the
> maturation of a project like this.  3 years ago, Rails needed all the
> mindshare it could get, and the infamous screencast was a powerful
> hook to draw people in.
>

This is the first time I have been unpleasantly surprised by a comment
on this forum.  I wonder if this reflects the views of the core team.

Working on creating 2 large apps based on rails 1, I am in the process
of moving them to Rails 2.  But I sense a significant distance between
the core Rails Movers and "the Rest of us".  So much of the
documentation (which was in any case not ideal) has now been confused,
and left behind.  As an existing Rails developer, I can just about
cope with the transition of how to convert to plugins for things like
pagination, auto_complete etc.  (But for a good summary of the changes
I was forced to buy the peepcode pdf)  I dont mind paying , but I
would if I was just trying rails out for the first time .   So many of
the tutorials are now going to just not work for Rails 2 and are going
to point in the wrong direction, particularly as regards REST (and
consequently the scaffold) and routing which is getting a fairly high
profile.  Even the Agile Rails book is no longer being quoted as the
Primary resource.   I suspect if I were coming as a noob, then this
amount of confusion, on top of the lack of a single documentation
resource, would cause me to give up in disgust.

Now I do not want to be a complainer.  I do not have any problems with
the Rails 2 direction, and getting to grips with REST routing and the
various concepts is really good for me.  But if there is no leg up for
those entering the fray for the first time,and it is felt that
maturing the product necessitates losing touch with the noob,  there
is a danger that Rails could become an old boy's club.  (Purely my own
opinion, but that would be a real shame - I have been a strong
advocate of Rails.)

Being a transition from 1 to 2, means this is Rails first experience
in version transition.   The rails team has got so much right that it
would be a shame to dismiss the significance of the version
transition.   I think there is merit in the view that need for total
backward compatibility can be dispensed with.  But if that is done
without clear documentation for the transition and its implications
(prominantly on the Rails home site - cos  that is the logical first
place to look), then it is just going to leave confusion to eventually
do its worst.

comments made with good intentions - reflecting my own feelings along
the way.
Tonypm


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---