From: David Heinemeier Hansson <david@...>
Date: 2004-10-08T22:37:11+09:00
Subject: Re: rails vs Java Struts

> Technically I don't think an MVC framework should choose an unrelated 
> technology for you like that. Does Rails allow you to swap out 
> something in place of ActiveRecords? I have very limited experience 
> with rails (I've gone through the basics of the installation and 
> tutorial only).

Sure it does. Instiki uses a Madeleine back-end and is hooked up with 
an older version of Action Pack.

But I really disagree with the "those an unrelated technology" theme in 
regards to Rails. I actually think the biggest asset of Rails is that 
it _does_ chose a full tech stack for you. Who wants to program 
control-flows? I want to create web-applications.

So in that sense Rails is more focused on the goal (a web-application) 
than the means (just control-flow or just ORM).

I think that's a good part of the reason why Rails is gathering some 
momentum now. It's a full solution to a problem (creating a 
web-application). This idea of course isn't new. You mention Spring 
which is also attempting to archive a full solution. And then there are 
projects like AppFuse that attempts to tie a given stack together.
--
David Heinemeier Hansson,
http://www.rubyonrails.org/  -- Web-application framework for Ruby
http://www.instiki.org/      -- A No-Step-Three Wiki in Ruby
http://macromates.com/       -- TextMate: Code and markup editor for OS 
X
http://www.basecamphq.com/   -- Web-based Project Management
http://www.loudthinking.com/ -- Broadcasting Brain
http://www.nextangle.com/    -- Development & Consulting Services