This article seems to have very dated information (released May 16, 2009? Is the writer using Internet Archive for his browsing?).
Furthermore, the approach of (seemingly) only having control over the model seems ridiculous to me. The presented framework seems useful only for "throw-away" applications that don't really do anything interesting. That all said, I'm obviously making the same mistake the writer of the article made; I haven't done much extensive research into the capabilities of OX, and can't speak to it's benefits or detriments. But I also haven't written an article titled "RoR is better than Java LOLOLOL", so there you go. On May 27, 9:08 am, Luke Pearce <[email protected]> wrote: > Phlip wrote: > > > Until then, anyone care to take on this logic? > > Actually I found the following statement about sums it up: > > "The productivity in Java world is a cultural problem, not a technical > one. That is this is not a Java fault, it's our fault, we, the Java > developers, need to design very beautiful architectures..." > > I have nothing against Java however I look at the example Recipe.java > and it reminds me of one of the reasons I switched to using Rails in the > first place...would I prefer a 50+ line model full of getters & setters > or a succinct 2 line one in Rails? > > From my point of view you don't need to see all the cruft; all you > really want to see & code is the business logic for your app. > > Luke > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
