Re: [Rails-core] Please, keep changing!

[James B. Byrne]

On Thursday, 1 March 2012 at 15:52, Rodrigo Rosenfeld
Rosas wrote:

> I've been reading lots of articles criticizing Rails
> in the last days.
>

What articles are those?



-- 
***          E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel          ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby 
on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.

ditto!! Good job guys!

--

Joel Moss

Develop with Style at http://DevelopWithStyle.com

===================================

Call me +44 7791 503309

http://twitter.com/joelmoss

AIM: joelkmoss

Skype: joelmoss.info

On Thursday, 1 March 2012 at 15:52, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:

I've been reading lots of articles criticizing Rails in the last days.

I'd just like you to know there are lots of people that are actually

happy with the way Rails is currently doing.

I'm one of them.

I did find very valuable all the work put in Rails 3 and I find it much

better organized than before versions and I'm expecting Rails 4 to be

even better.

Of course there are lots of things to be improved in Rails, specially in

the documentation (I think Rails 1 documentation model was the best I've

seen for Rails so far), but that doesn't mean Rails is doing it wrong.

It doesn't mean Rails 3 was a mistake. It doesn't mean Rails should be

trying really hard to keep backward compatibility, since I suffer

everyday working with Java APIs that were poorly designed (as the

language itself) just because improving them would break backward

compatibilities.

Or like having to write "$.each(function(index, element){})" in jQuery

because "each" was badly designed when it was born inverting the

parameters most useful order.

Reading all those articles made me think that some of you would consider

those criticisms and re-evaluate the future of Rails.

So, I'm here to say that lots of other developers do support the way

Rails is currently evolving and we want it to keep it in the same "rails".

Thank you very much for all effort put in its code-base.

Cheers,

Rodrigo.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.

To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.