Rails - Jan 2008 - Rails versus PHP in complex HTML/CSS

I have done a bunch of Rails stuff on my own and my company uses PHP.
I often have to integrate very complex HTML/CSS into PHP. I know that
the PHP looks more closer to the HTML than Rails because Rails has
alot of link_to and other macro like calls that generate alot of stuff
that you don''t see in the template. I am wondering if that could make
it any tricker to generate the complex sort of HTML that we have done
with PHP ? I have been trying to promote Rails at my company, but
sometimes I try to imagine what sort of hurdles there could be in
trying to get people to like Rails. I remember some of the select()
calls I found hard to figure out at first in the templates because
they wheren''t really well documented in the books that I have.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

You can just write all the html you want in html.erb-files. Before the
server sends the html.erb-files to the client he dynamically replaces
the ruby code between <%-tags-%> so its just like the same using the
php <? ?> tags (well i at least think thats what they look like).

The helpers just generate html code for you u can just as easily write
by hand. They just try to simplify your code. If they dont provide the
functionallity you need you can easily wirte your own helpers that
generate the html code u need.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

> the PHP looks more closer to the HTML than Rails because Rails has
> alot of link_to and other macro like calls that generate alot of stuff
> that you don''t see in the template. I am wondering if that could
make
> it any tricker to generate the complex sort of HTML that we have done
> with PHP ?
you don''t have to use it. you can still write ''pure''
html or any
intermediate level of using html / ruby / rails

the partials are a great way to handle complex pages by splitting them 
in small parts, especially for ajax that''s a great thing (but maybe PHP
offers something like that, to, i''m not a PHP programmer)
-- 
Posted via http://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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Thorsten Mueller wrote:
> the partials are a great way to handle complex pages by splitting them 
> in small parts, especially for ajax that''s a great thing (but
maybe PHP
> offers something like that, to, i''m not a PHP programmer)
Sure it does, in frameworks like symfony (symfony-project.com) you have 
layouts, partials, slots and components as good as RoR.


-- 
A


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 18 Jan 2008, at 17:44, Eno wrote:
>> the partials are a great way to handle complex pages by splitting  
>> them
>> in small parts, especially for ajax that''s a great thing (but
>> maybe PHP
>> offers something like that, to, i''m not a PHP programmer)
>
> Sure it does, in frameworks like symfony (symfony-project.com) you  
> have
> layouts, partials, slots and components as good as RoR.
I wouldn''t say "as good as". "similar to a very old
Rails version"
would be more appropriate :-)


Best regards

Peter De Berdt


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Peter De Berdt wrote:
> I wouldn''t say "as good as". "similar to a very old
Rails version"
> would be more appropriate :-)
Wouldn''t it be better to substantiate that with concrete examples?

And define "very old" while you''re at it?


-- 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 18 Jan 2008, at 20:54, Eno wrote:
>> I wouldn''t say "as good as". "similar to a very
old Rails version"
>> would be more appropriate :-)
>
> Wouldn''t it be better to substantiate that with concrete examples?
>
> And define "very old" while you''re at it?
Symphony is one of the PHP frameworks that''s clearly inspired by  
Rails. The featureset is about the same as Rails < 1.2. I consider  
that a very old Rails version.

The best way to find out for yourself is develop in Rails most of the  
time and then being forced for one project to go back to PHP using  
Symphony. I''m not going to venture into discussions that eventually  
lead up to nothing, but doing a project in Symphony again felt  
limited and very unnatural, both PHP as a language and Symphony as a  
framework were to blame here. That doesn''t mean it doesn''t
have its
merrits, you can easily deploy its applications on shared hosts for  
example.

You posted this message on the Rails mailing list, what did you  
expect to hear? A lot of people here actually have a PHP background  
or still do some PHP.


Best regards

Peter De Berdt


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Peter De Berdt wrote:
> Symphony is one of the PHP frameworks that''s clearly inspired by  
> Rails. The featureset is about the same as Rails < 1.2. I consider  
> that a very old Rails version.
Didn''t RoR jump from 1.2.6 directly to 2.0 ?
> You posted this message on the Rails mailing list, what did you  
> expect to hear? A lot of people here actually have a PHP background  
> or still do some PHP.
I like RoR a lot but I use PHP and hence, symfony, in my day job (and Im 
coming from a C / Perl background :-) I was just trying to get specific 
details to compare the two. Like features of templating that are missing 
in symfony (and/or vice versa). I realize this is a RoR list so I guess it 
was stupid of me to look for a healthy discussion of any kind.



-- 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

You can write any HTML you want in ERB templates. You don''t have to
use the helpers (which are sometimes rather limited) if they are not
appropriate for you. But in the example with links, at the very least
you should use url_for to generate the URL from your routes instead of
putting it in manually... that would be very difficult to maintain.
But it''s not any more difficult to generate complex and css, because
rails'' templates are just embedded ruby, similar to how PHP works.


On Jan 18, 3:47 am,
"wbsurf...-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org"
<wbsurf...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>  I have done a bunch of Rails stuff on my own and my company uses PHP.
> I often have to integrate very complex HTML/CSS into PHP. I know that
> the PHP looks more closer to the HTML than Rails because Rails has
> alot of link_to and other macro like calls that generate alot of stuff
> that you don''t see in the template. I am wondering if that could
make
> it any tricker to generate the complex sort of HTML that we have done
> with PHP ? I have been trying to promote Rails at my company, but
> sometimes I try to imagine what sort of hurdles there could be in
> trying to get people to like Rails. I remember some of the select()
> calls I found hard to figure out at first in the templates because
> they wheren''t really well documented in the books that I have.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 18 Jan 2008, at 22:48, Eno wrote:
>> Symphony is one of the PHP frameworks that''s clearly inspired
by
>> Rails. The featureset is about the same as Rails < 1.2. I consider
>> that a very old Rails version.
> Didn''t RoR jump from 1.2.6 directly to 2.0 ?
Sure, that''s why I said < 1.2. From my experience, Rails 1.2 and 2.0
introduced a fair number of interesting and useful conventions/ 
concepts, such as REST. Symphony is (still) lacking those and it  
slows me down.
>> You posted this message on the Rails mailing list, what did you
>> expect to hear? A lot of people here actually have a PHP background
>> or still do some PHP.
>
> I like RoR a lot but I use PHP and hence, symfony, in my day job  
> (and Im
> coming from a C / Perl background :-) I was just trying to get  
> specific
> details to compare the two. Like features of templating that are  
> missing
> in symfony (and/or vice versa). I realize this is a RoR list so I  
> guess it
> was stupid of me to look for a healthy discussion of any kind.
What I like about Ruby, is how it has enabled Rails to use Ruby  
itself as a templating language (using ERB) instead of having to fall  
back on a proprietary templating language such as Smarty or the  
likes.  The Rails helpers such as link_to etc do make the view more  
easy to read then awkward constructions like <a href="<%= url_for 
(some_url) -%>">. That''s the reason I don''t mind
using them at all.


Best regards

Peter De Berdt


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

>> I like RoR a lot but I use PHP and hence, symfony, in my day job  
>> (and Im
>> coming from a C / Perl background :-) I was just trying to get  
>> specific
>> details to compare the two. Like features of templating that are  
>> missing
>> in symfony (and/or vice versa). I realize this is a RoR list so I  
>> guess it
>> was stupid of me to look for a healthy discussion of any kind.
>
> What I like about Ruby, is how it has enabled Rails to use Ruby  
> itself as a templating language (using ERB) instead of having to  
> fall back on a proprietary templating language such as Smarty or  
> the likes.  The Rails helpers such as link_to etc do make the view  
> more easy to read then awkward constructions like <a href="<%=  
> url_for(some_url) -%>">. That''s the reason I
don''t mind using them
> at all.
And by falling back to a templating language in php, I mean it''s just  
more interesting to do so for the sake of maintainability. You can of  
course just use php code in the page, but in the end it would be very  
ugly and hard to maintain.


Best regards

Peter De Berdt


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

You may be interested in our full page design environment for Rails - 
the Visual Rails Workbench - which will be launched in a forthcoming 
update to Ruby In Steel and which I''ll demo on our blog next week.

best wishes
Huw Collingbourne

SapphireSteel Software
Ruby and Rails In Visual Studio
http://www.sapphiresteel.com
-- 
Posted via http://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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

> What I like about Ruby, is how it has enabled Rails to use Ruby
> itself as a templating language (using ERB) instead of having to fall
> back on a proprietary templating language such as Smarty or the
> likes.
I agree, ERB is definitely much more readable and maintainable than
PHP embedded into HTML, but unfortunately there is still the issue of
it evaling the code. Template engines like Smarty serve another very
important purpose - providing a secure way for designers and end users
to edit templates without eval''ing the code and exposing the context
of the application in which they run.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

If I''m not mistaken, what you''re looking for are helpers.
Helpers
allow you to do complex things and import them into your design.
Infact, all the "link_to and other macro like calls" are actually
rebuilt helpers that come with Rails... but you can also make your own
to do other things.

SIMPLE EXAMPLE
If you are using CSS heavily, you''re surely using unordered lists for
navigation somewhere in the design. You could create a NavMenu helper
that would build an ordered list with links simply by having this in
your layout/view: <%= navmenu @subcategories %>

You could also use Partials as mentioned above.

Does that help?

~ mel


On Jan 18, 2:47 am,
"wbsurf...-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org"
<wbsurf...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>  I have done a bunch of Rails stuff on my own and my company uses PHP.
> I often have to integrate very complex HTML/CSS into PHP. I know that
> the PHP looks more closer to the HTML than Rails because Rails has
> alot of link_to and other macro like calls that generate alot of stuff
> that you don''t see in the template. I am wondering if that could
make
> it any tricker to generate the complex sort of HTML that we have done
> with PHP ? I have been trying to promote Rails at my company, but
> sometimes I try to imagine what sort of hurdles there could be in
> trying to get people to like Rails. I remember some of the select()
> calls I found hard to figure out at first in the templates because
> they wheren''t really well documented in the books that I have.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Peter De Berdt wrote:
> > What I like about Ruby, is how it has enabled Rails to use Ruby  
> > itself as a templating language (using ERB) instead of having to  
> > fall back on a proprietary templating language such as Smarty or  
> > the likes.  The Rails helpers such as link_to etc do make the view  
> > more easy to read then awkward constructions like <a
href="<%=
> > url_for(some_url) -%>">. That''s the reason I
don''t mind using them
> > at all.
> 
> And by falling back to a templating language in php, I mean it''s
just
> more interesting to do so for the sake of maintainability. You can of  
> course just use php code in the page, but in the end it would be very  
> ugly and hard to maintain.
symfony doesn''t use any additional layers (like Smarty) for templating,
just PHP (which are usually just echoing variables kind of like ERB in 
Rails). (You can install plugins to use other kinds of markup if you want 
to though).

symfony also has helpers for generating URLs, links, javascript, etc:
http://www.symfony-project.org/book/1_0/09-Links-and-the-Routing-System#Hyperlinks,%20Buttons,%20and%20Forms

Uses routing too:
http://www.symfony-project.org/book/1_0/09-Links-and-the-Routing-System#Rules%20and%20Patterns

True, we dont have things like RJS and I dont think RESTful practices are 
there yet. And the ORM layer, Propel, doesn''t have migrations (you can
use
Doctrine which *does* have migrations).

Like Ruby, symfony also uses OOP throughout (based on PHP5).



-- 
A




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Jan 21, 2008, at 7:52 AM, Eno wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Peter De Berdt wrote:
>
>>> What I like about Ruby, is how it has enabled Rails to use Ruby
>>> itself as a templating language (using ERB) instead of having to
>>> fall back on a proprietary templating language such as Smarty or
>>> the likes.  The Rails helpers such as link_to etc do make the view
>>> more easy to read then awkward constructions like <a
href="<%>>> url_for(some_url) -%>">. That''s
the reason I don''t mind using them
>>> at all.
>>
>> And by falling back to a templating language in php, I mean
it''s just
>> more interesting to do so for the sake of maintainability. You can of
>> course just use php code in the page, but in the end it would be very
>> ugly and hard to maintain.
>
> symfony doesn''t use any additional layers (like Smarty) for  
> templating,
> just PHP (which are usually just echoing variables kind of like ERB in
> Rails). (You can install plugins to use other kinds of markup if you  
> want
> to though).
>
> symfony also has helpers for generating URLs, links, javascript, etc:
>
http://www.symfony-project.org/book/1_0/09-Links-and-the-Routing-System#Hyperlinks,%20Buttons,%20and%20Forms
>
> Uses routing too:
>
http://www.symfony-project.org/book/1_0/09-Links-and-the-Routing-System#Rules%20and%20Patterns
>
> True, we dont have things like RJS and I dont think RESTful  
> practices are
> there yet. And the ORM layer, Propel, doesn''t have migrations (you
> can use
> Doctrine which *does* have migrations).
>
> Like Ruby, symfony also uses OOP throughout (based on PHP5).
Having written a PHP framework and then moved exclusively to Rails, I  
would venture the following comments:

- The most expensive task for most pages was instantiating the  
framework. Rails does this at startup. Love it or hate it, this is an  
efficiency.
- The Rails ecosystem is vital and my experience with PHP was that it  
was fragmented once you got outside the core libraries.
- Ruby, the language, is less like C and more like Smalltalk or  
Python. It expresses newer thinking in terms of dynamic language  
design. I wrote a test runner in PHP5 about 8 months ago, and it was  
very difficult. The PHP introspection isn''t what Ruby''s is,
nor is it
possible (IMO) to write a natural feeling DSL such as Rails.
- The testing tools for PHP have never felt right to me. I know people  
are using PHPUnit to good end, but I never felt it really fit the bill.

At the end of the day, it''s what you feel comfortable with. The buzz  
around Rails has had time to settle and one would expect that if there  
were no substance there would be a die-off. I don''t see that  
happening, so my interpretation is that Rails has material value to  
developers. How many are gainfully employed writing Rails applications  
is subject to debate, but there is no doubt that the Rails technology  
has been embraced in a number of credible shops. Amazon, Sun,  
Microsoft, and Apple are (to name a few) all taking Rails seriously.

if(this->looks() == good->toYou) {
   tryRails();
}
else {
   stayWithPHP();
}


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, s.ross wrote:
> - The most expensive task for most pages was instantiating the  
> framework. Rails does this at startup. Love it or hate it, this is an  
> efficiency.
Just to clarify: am I correct in saying this is true when using fastcgi or 
handing off to something like Mongrel right?
> - The Rails ecosystem is vital and my experience with PHP was that it  
> was fragmented once you got outside the core libraries.
Yes and no. There''s several frameworks for PHP and some of them have 
really good community around them (symfony is a good example).
> - Ruby, the language, is less like C and more like Smalltalk or  
> Python. It expresses newer thinking in terms of dynamic language  
> design. I wrote a test runner in PHP5 about 8 months ago, and it was  
> very difficult. The PHP introspection isn''t what Ruby''s
is
True, but then OOP is PHP is pretty new compared to Ruby.
> At the end of the day, it''s what you feel comfortable with. The
buzz
> around Rails has had time to settle and one would expect that if there  
> were no substance there would be a die-off.
Do you know of any BIG sites that are built from Rails? I can''t think
of
any off the top of my head though Im sure someone will chime in with one 
that Ive forgotten about! 
> I don''t see that  
> happening, so my interpretation is that Rails has material value to  
> developers. How many are gainfully employed writing Rails applications  
> is subject to debate, but there is no doubt that the Rails technology  
> has been embraced in a number of credible shops. Amazon, Sun,  
> Microsoft, and Apple are (to name a few) all taking Rails seriously.
The good news is that a lot of Rails'' ideas have flowed out into other 
languages/frameworks. A Good Thing.
> if(this->looks() == good->toYou) {
>    tryRails();
> }
> else {
>    stayWithPHP();
> }
I dont see this as an either/or kind of thing. If I could use Rails in my 
day-job, I would. (I play with it for personal stuff only right now).



-- 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Do you know of any BIG sites that are built from Rails? I can''t think
of
> any off the top of my head though Im sure someone will chime in with one
> that Ive forgotten about!
>
http://yellowpages.com



-- 
Ryan Bigg
http://www.frozenplague.net
Feel free to add me to MSN and/or GTalk as this email.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 23 Jan 2008, at 00:49, Ryan Bigg wrote:
> Do you know of any BIG sites that are built from Rails? I can''t  
> think of
> any off the top of my head though Im sure someone will chime in  
> with one
> that Ive forgotten about!
>
> http://yellowpages.com
Twitter
BBC Video and Audio Archive


Best regards

Peter De Berdt


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---