ypomonh wrote:

> Philip, let me see if I got it straight:
>
> Ruby seems more well suited (eg. from Java) for implementing the
> ActiveRecord pattern, because its dynamic features make it easy/easier
> to implement (pretty much) any pattern. There is no inherent connection
> between the language and this _specific_ pattern.
>
> Am I correct?

"Yes and..."

That's consultant speak. We practice not saying "No but". (-;

The narrowest detail here is Java does not permit def my_column=, so its 
code will always look ugly and resist elegance, especially when doing Active 
Record.

In general, Ruby is more suited than Java for anything in Java's space, 
except the crackerjack marketing to "enterprises". We are working on a bot 
for that. (-;

-- 
  Phlip