From: Kevin Clark Date: 2006-08-28T16:31:39+09:00 Subject: Re: Pros/Cons of Turbogears/Rails? I think the original poster is getting Rails and Ruby confused a fair amount. To be clear, Ruby is a language like Python. Rails is a framework for writing web applications like Django. I have no experience with TurboGears so the best I can do is try to help explain some of your ideas about Rails. >Turbogears: >+ SqlObject allows working with the DB tables without >using SQL itself. Although migrations have already been mentioned, I think you're referring to something like ActiveRecord in Rails with is an object mapping of table rows. Yes, Rails has it. I don't really write SQL anymore. >+ Likely to be faster because as far as I'm aware, Python >is significantly faster. I'm not sure about the benchmarks between Python and Ruby but Rails is plenty fast as long as it is deployed appropriately. I'd expect the same from TurboGears and expect them to be capable of similar results. >+ Easy access to other libraries (such as the Python >Imaging Library) that Ruby, being a relatively newer >language, doesn't have equivalents to. Python isn't that much older than Ruby. Check in on the libraries you need before deciding based on this. It hasn't been a problem for me thusfar. >+ 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.) Ruby certainly doesn't require MySQL. Rails configures for MySQL by default but it's trivial to change. If you know your'e going to use sqlite instead you can even do 'rails my_project -d sqlite' and it'll do it for you. >+ I find the templating system somewhat cleaner; code in >py: xml namespace allows pure .html templates, instead >of equivalent of .rhtml files. I'm not sure what you mean. If you don't like ERb there are several alternatives. I'd say try both out and work with what feels more natural. This will also give you a chance to see what you're missing in each. -- Kevin Clark http://glu.ttono.us