From: David Morton Date: 2004-07-27T01:26:40+09:00 Subject: Re: rubyonrails and cgikit comparison David Heinemeier Hansson wrote: > What the HTML guy didn't do was the initial logic. The reason for is > that this logic changed from page to page. The listing for Milestones > wouldn't use the same methods as would the Todo lists and so on. > > And the HTML guy couldn't really make any new templates in isolation > anyway. You need some kind of controller action pulling the right things > out of the database and so on before you pass on to the template. The A very important point here... I have run into "designers" who had absolutely no concept of dynamic pages and databases. This is the type of person that would not understand the ruby code in a template. If it doesn't look like html, they don't understand it. It's questionable whether they'd understand cgkit's way of doing it either. If they saw "Hi, Mr. Morton" in a web browser, they couldn't figure out where the "Morton" came from, even when looking at the following. :( Hi, Mr. <%= @person.name %> I personally wouldn't choose to work with such a designer... If they can't understand and learn some basic patterns related to dynamic page generation, it makes it very hard to work with them. They don't have to learn all of ruby, but it should be obvious that the above line outputs a name of some sort. Again, they don't work in isolation... the designer should be able to approach the coder with questions, and learn from those questions. (and vice versa) <%= @person.name %> It's very easy to copy and paste elsewhere, and more readable as dynamic content than or that make me look up another file somewhere to see what it does, which may then lead me to a properties file that leads me to yet another file. (Yes, I'm frustrated with trying to learn J2EE right now.) :( I much prefer this rails syntax, which is similar to how I did things in a perl ASP format. Looks good so far, David! -- David Morton