From: Thomas Adam Date: 2006-10-08T04:27:26+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby vs. Rails On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 04:10:50 +0900 "Giles Bowkett" wrote: > OK, this question came up on a local list, and I don't have the > answer. > > Does Rails require Ruby? Yes. > Before I go any further I should point out that I have in fact been > banned from the Rails list, probably for loud and vituperative > criticism of the list itself, but possibly also for advocating sex > with goats. (I have since made an effort at apology, although it seems > to have been unsuccessful.) At any rate, that's one reason why I'm > posting this question here, rather than on the Rails list. Are you trying to apologise for that by proxy? I fail to see what difference it makes mentioning it here, other than to attract sympathy from people who potenitally have no idea what the situation is about. But consider yourself absolved all the same if it helps appease your conscience. > Does anybody on this list have experience with any of the copycat > frameworks? Has your experience been detailed enough to include an > examination of the source code? If so, is it your opinion that Ruby is > a necessary component of Rails' success? Can you point to evidence in > the form of specific design decisions in competing frameworks? That's the wrong way around to ask the question isn't it? Something like Rails could easily be implemented in other languages; the author of it chose Ruby for his own reasons, no doubt. -- Thomas Adam -- "If I were a witch's hat, sitting on her head like a paraffin stove, I'd fly away and be a bat." -- Incredible String Band.