On 12/13/05, braver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > and it has an emphasis on Ruby's "beauty", and parsimony, as > demonstrated by the code excerpt (David: "I was more surprised to learn > that someone would actually prefer something like"):
Except David glosses over an awful lot in that example; before you can create that "beautiful" Ruby class you have to write all the SQL to create tables for each model, join tables for relationships, etc., etc. In this case, I think Django's explicitness in making you describe your model is a Good Thing. -- "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin
