On Mar 8, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Everton Moreth wrote: > Agreeing with José, I work on a University, and we try to keep all our > systems follow a pattern, so clients get used to our layout and design and > our developers get standard comment tips about how to name and describe > methods. For this, we rely strongly on scaffold customization. > > I also agree that this should not be put as an advantage for beginners on > tutorials and books, showing them how to "not" write code. Even a warning > message could appear on scaffolding generation, or making the generators a > little less "automagic" (and maybe a little more dumb also), forcing people > to customize scaffolds before getting something usable.
WAT. No, seriously - this is like a group of Ikea craftsmen deciding to no longer use pre-cut wood, since making customers cut it for themselves will teach them carpentry more quickly. "Dumbing down" the generator is them trying to split the difference by cutting to shape but not drilling holes; both approaches ignore that the "EAT UR VEGGIES NAOW" method only works if you've got customers that can't choose an alternative. To me, it seems easier to imagine the counterfactual: imagine Rails *without* a similar generator, and then imagine the responses to a proposed generator that would automatically create reasonably clean, idiomatic code that a new developer could quickly see results from. Such a thing would likely be popular... --Matt Jones -- 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.
