On Jul 25, 2004, at 10:51 Uhr, Gully Foyle wrote:

> There seems to be a lot of excitement about rubyonrails even before 
> the announcement of version 0.5.
>
> What makes rubyonrails 0.5 more attractive than cgikit 1.2.1?  I'm 
> under the impression cgikit offers MVC and has an architecture similar 
> to WebObjects (which is well-regarded) but I've no experience with 
> these tools.

i think following things make rails much more attractive:

- rails is much more than just a mvc framework: +activerecord.

- cgikit seems to have way more overhead that rails. i mean, just
compare a simple hello world. i admit its kinda silly to compare
frameworks via the most simple hello world, that doesnt show
their real power. but i've used frameworks which are similiar
to cgikit before.. and believe me, it can turn into a pure nightmare
when you have to create components for the smallest little
things.

i really believe into using ruby as a view language. the whole
'every view can be described in xml'-thing is totally utopian and
will never be happening. sooner or later you run into situations
where things become terrible akward. what for example if you
wanna change the style attribute of a xhtml tag based on some
condition?


- rails is pragmatic. it makes simple things simple, and hard
things possible (yes! i bet you never heard this sentence
before ; ) but with rails its totally true. if you believe in components
in the view, its possible to add that..

basically you really start to appreciate that you dont have to
write tons of config files for everything. cgikit could also do that.
it would be so much nicer if there would be some name specifications
for your component class. like naming methods which return attributes
in a special way. then you could get rid of the whole binding file. (i
might be wrong, since i just quickly browsed the docs =)


ciao!
florian