On Jul 16, 5:33 am, SonOfLilit <sonofli... / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/16/07, Trans <transf... / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 2:51 am, SonOfLilit <sonofli... / gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The ruby way is to consider building any app with the requirements you
> > > listed as a Rails app.
>
> > That's a ridiculous statement.
>
> > T.
>
> It's based on the fact that in any such thread, the idea comes up and
> many have supported it from their experience. Notice I said to
> "consider". What I mean is:
>
>   In Ruby, when you need a database GUI app, there's another option
> besides GUI toolkits and that is Rails.
>
> BTW, using Rails does not mean having it online, you can even
> distribute it as a Rails server to be run on the client's computer
> (but then you don't get the advantage of absolutely hidden code).

My point is that there are plenty of other choices: Nitro, Camping,
Webrick.

Ruby != Rails.

T.