Howdy,

I think the tutorial approach was an excellent idea because it allows  
beginning and advanced programmers alike to learn a new (language |  
framework).  The beginner will use the tutorial as a story and learn  
from Dave and David as they're building the app (doesn't matter what)  
and benefit from seeing explanations with each choice.  A more  
advanced programmer will have questions answered along the way if  
she's paying attention.

I wondered how one could include partial templates and how web  
services are done in ruby/rails.  These and other techniques I have  
in my existing toolset were answered as I read the story.

I'm sure there's a better philosophical term for it, but I think you  
can learn a lot from most examples.

Cheers,
Richard


On Feb 4, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Dave Thomas wrote:

>
> On Feb 4, 2006, at 5:08 AM, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
>
>> While I don't agree with your view on the Pickaxe, I think you are
>> right with respect to AWDWG, I didn't like the store example
>> either---though it's of course a good application to use Rails for.
>>
>> Therefore, I actually only skimmed the tutorial part and went  
>> right on
>> the reference... if you know what you want/need, this approach works
>> good for me.
>
>
> This is really interesting feedback.
>
> When I chose the store, it wasn't because I wanted to build a  
> store, or because I thought most people would want to build on.  
> Instead, I looked for an application that would let me explore most  
> of the functionality of Rails in some kind of logical order. It  
> turned out a store was rich enough to do that, but simple enough  
> that the application-specific functionality didn't get in the way.  
> The intent was to teach Rails, not to teach how to build a store.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave
>