Many Thanks People!!! You all are simply awesome. Thank you so much for taking your time out and replying in such verbosity. Dean asked: * Are you familiar with object-oriented programming concepts? Aman: Yes i know the concepts alright. Read some cpp in college. Dean asked: * Are you familiar with the MVC framework? Aman: Nope. I wouldn''t even know what the acronym stands for :-s Dean asked: * What''s your planned production environment going to be? Aman: Actually my production environment would depend on the choice I make now between CF and RoR. If I choose CF we would probably order JRun as well as both I''ve heard work well together and both are from the same vendor so support might be easier. If I choose RoR, I don''t really know what options I have besides Apache2. Any suggestions? Dean asked: * Do you need to integrate legacy apps/data? Aman: Nope. We just started so we have no legacy to worship. :) Dean asked: * And very importantly, how do you feel about pluralization of table names? OK, the last one''s a joke... sorry, couldn''t restrain myself. Aman: Pluralization allows accessor names to be more meaningful and allows a wide range of column-naming schemes. I recommend naming tables with a plural noun and foreign key columns with a singular noun (optionally with the _id suffix). This combination makes the accessor names much more meaningful, and is (to my knowledge) the most common relational naming convention. OK I admit I looked it up on the internet...sorry couldn''t restrain myself either :-) I think that makes my requirements more explicit. Thanks Dean for holding my finger through this.>From all the responses I have gathered till now, what I understand is that CF is much easier to learn but RoR can do many clever things which result in lesser code. However, to understand the clever code, one would have to be clever himself.My another observation was that most of the goodness of RoR comes from Rails, which is a Framework. CF already has many frameworks available for it like Fusebox or Model - Glue (Thanks Marlon for pointing them out). So if, by any chance sometime down the line, if Rails is made available for CF as well, wouldn''t that give us the best of both the worlds? Abstraction from programming for the uninitiated + a clever framework to get things done most efficiently. Is there any development going on for bringing Rails to CF? Is it even possible? If it were, would it be really as nice for our community as I think? Many Thanks Friends, Aman --------------------------------- Check out Yahoo! India Rakhi Special for Rakhi shopping, contests and lots more. http://in.promos.yahoo.com/rakhi/index.html _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 28.8.2005, at 13.05, Aman wrote:> > My another observation was that most of the goodness of RoR comes > from Rails, which is a Framework. CF already has many frameworks > available for it like Fusebox or Model - Glue (Thanks Marlon for > pointing them out). So if, by any chance sometime down the line, if > Rails is made available for CF as well, wouldn''t that give us the > best of both the worlds?Wrong. There was a reason why David chose Ruby as the language of Rails. This will probably cause a wave of arguments on this list but there is just so much in Rails that you couldn''t get were it to use a less dynamic and introspective language. If you''re anyway going to learn a new language, Ruby is probably not going to cause you any more pain than CF. Besides, Ruby will serve you well on a much broader scope than just web apps. And as you said that you''re familiar with OO concepts, Ruby will be a perfect language for you to learn. If you''re going to dive into a web application framework, again, I don''t think learning Ruby + Rails will be any harder than CF + [insert some CF framework here]. As for MVC (Model-View-Controller, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Model_view_controller), it is the logical next term to learn if you know OOP, and not at all hard to grok.> Is there any development going on for bringing Rails to CF?Not that I know.> Is it even possible?Some parts of Rails could be duplicated but probably not all.> If it were, would it be really as nice for our community as I think?I don''t think anyone can give a legit answer for this at the moment. //jarkko -- Jarkko Laine http://jlaine.net http://odesign.fi _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
2005-Aug-30 04:00 UTC
Re: Comparison between CF and RoR + CF on Rails
Jarkko Laine wrote:> On 28.8.2005, at 13.05, Aman wrote: > >> >> My another observation was that most of the goodness of RoR comes >> from Rails, which is a Framework. CF already has many frameworks >> available for it like Fusebox or Model - Glue (Thanks Marlon for >> pointing them out). So if, by any chance sometime down the line, >> if Rails is made available for CF as well, wouldn''t that give us >> the best of both the worlds? >> > Wrong. There was a reason why David chose Ruby as the language of Rails.Well ... David is on the list ... why don''t we let *him* tell *all* the reasons why he chose Ruby. :)> This will probably cause a wave of arguments on this list but there is > just so much in Rails that you couldn''t get were it to use a less > dynamic and introspective language.Could you give me a working definition of "dynamic" and "introspective"? Then, plot a quadrant with "dynamicness" on the X-axis and "introspectiveness" on the Y-axis and place Ruby, Perl, Python, PHP and Lisp in the appropriate place on the plot. Throw in Java; I know it''s less dynamic, since there''s a "javac" step in many cases, but I''d like to see where it comes out on the introspectiveness scale. I don''t know anything about C#, but you don''t have to put C or C++ on there; I''m willing to throw out all the "must be compiled and linked before executing" languages except Java. Put C# on if you think it''s valid.> If you''re anyway going to learn a new language, Ruby is probably not > going to cause you any more pain than CF. Besides, Ruby will serve you > well on a much broader scope than just web apps. And as you said that > you''re familiar with OO concepts, Ruby will be a perfect language for > you to learn.I certainly plan to learn Ruby, although I''m guessing it will take me a while to unlearn all my bad Perl habits. :) I''ve done enough Lisp and FORTH programming to be able to build programs in small chunks and create a "problem-oriented language" using just about any native syntax that''s at all manageable. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com