> With the MVC concept and heavy use of HTML, I am having doubts that
> this is the way to develop those compelling highly graphical web pages.
>  I can use AJAX and RAILS on the server side, but if I want dynamic
> graphics I still need heavy JavaScript, Flash or Java Applet code on
> the client side.  In which case I don't see where RAILS fits in.  So I
> am comming to the conclusion that RAILS is really for Server side
> development for the 90% of 'typical', and rather dreary, web
> applications development.

Rails sits on the server ('server-side' development), whereas you're talking
about 'client-side' design. Even with scripting to allow graphics to behave
in a certain way, unless those graphics are talking to the server then
they're what I would call 'scripted design'. Design and development are
linked, but are different. So I suppose I'm saying, for the use you're
wanting, I would stick with Flash, or JavaScript. You can use Flash and
JavaScript in Rails, but if dynamic graphics is all you desire there would
be little point.

I think you're a little confused about what modern websites are. Flash was
modern 7 years ago. Dynamic graphics, probably older. A good guess at what
is popularly regarded as modern these days is outlined in this article from
the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0, particularly these
ideas: "...referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content
itself, characterised by open communication, decentralization of authority,
freedom to share and re-use... a transition of websites from isolated
information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming a
computing platform serving web applications to end users." and can be
achieved with no graphics whatsoever, dynamic or otherwise.

Of course, what is truly modern is up to you, you're part of its authorship
afterall.

Luke