From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2006-08-28T05:34:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Pros/Cons of Turbogears/Rails?

On Aug 27, 2006, at 3:10 PM, kenneth.m.mcdonald@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> First, I don't intend this to be a flame war, please. Python
> and Ruby are the only two languages I'd willingly work in
> (at least amongst common languages), and TurboGears and
> Rails seem roughly equivalent.

I'm also not trying to attack Turbogears, as I know nothing about  
it.  I will respond to some of those points with a Rails slant  
though, just for your information.

> Here are the pros and cons that I'm aware of and consider
> important:
>
> Turbogears:
> + SqlObject allows working with the DB tables without
> using SQL itself.

Rails has migrations which allow you to manipulate the database in  
Ruby.  You can also use Rails's console script to interactively play  
with your database.

> + Easy access to other libraries (such as the Python
> Imaging Library) that Ruby, being a relatively newer
> language, doesn't have equivalents to.

Ruby does have an imaging library called RMagick.

> + Built-in default SQLite makes it easier to set up?
> (as far as I can tell, Ruby requires MySql by default--don't
> know how easy this is to change.)

You have to change one line of a config file to use an SQLite  
database with your Rails application.  Its very easy.

> + I find the templating system somewhat cleaner; code in
> py: xml namespace allows pure .html templates, instead
> of equivalent of .rhtml files.

Just FYI, rhtml files are just one way to build output with Rails.   
You might want to look at using Builder, which is a pure Ruby interface.

Hope that helps.

James Edward Gray II