Of course - actually, personally I prefer Camping over Rails.

But Rails has all the features, all the glitter and all the userbase.

That's why I recommended it.

Aur

On 7/16/07, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>