Re: Hibernate and ActiveRecord (Ruby-on-Rails) comparison

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2005/04/05]

Am 05.04.2005 um 00:31 schrieb William Ross:

> On 4 Apr 2005, at 23:24, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
>> I thought this article was pretty good, and might help others 
>> understand
>> some key differences between what Class::DBI and what Hibernate does.
>> Ruby's ActiveRecord, which is what Ruby on Rails uses, is very similar
>> to Class::DBI (almost identical I would say).
>>
>> http://theserverside.com/articles/article.tss?l=RailsHibernate
>
> have you tried Ruby on Rails? I'd be very interested in impressions 
> from someone familiar with perl and cdbi.

I'm also a bit familiar with perl/mvc/cdbi... :)


RoR is really much overhyped.

ActiveRecord is nearly a 1:1 copy of CDBI and ActionPack is imo a very 
bad dispatcher...
Absolutely nobody wants "/class/method/arg" uri's, and they're bound to 
it. (they "invented" a bloated hard to configure rewrite engine named 
routes to hush that weakness)

The real big deal are all the little helpers around, code generators 
(script/generate), ready to run built in testserver (script/server) and 
testing framework...
Ruby syntax may be sweet but we have CPAN, so for example they are 
missing stuff like Locale::Maketext, Data::FormValidator or Plucene...

They are damn good at marketing, something the Perl world still has to 
learn...


P.S.: Maybe you want to look at Catalyst for a Perl alternative...the 
upcoming version 5 is a killer. ;)

--
sebastian