From: Ilan Berci Date: 2008-02-03T08:56:14+09:00 Subject: Re: Comparing Active Record VS Datamapper...? Softmind Technology wrote: > Hello, > > Comparing Active Record VS DataMapper...? > > Can any one provide more details on this.. > > Any Links of Blogs comparing the above two. > > I shall also welcome your suggestions on this. > > Thanks I was curious about this myself, I have used AR for years now and I was interested in DM's promise of no migrations and optional lazy loading of fields. I have no problem expressing my fields in the models (I actually like it) and I have no problem being committed to MySQL. If DM can update your schema automagically when seeing an incompatibility/update with your model then I won't sleep for a week due to the magic of it all. I used to think that migrations were the best thing since sliced bread but due to the fact that AR attempts to cater to every major vendor, I usually have to go in a hand tune my migrations anyways (bigint and foreign key constraints which I realize many feel are unnecessary when working with RoR). I also used to follow OG as well but after some playing around, i came to the conclusion that updating the schema with it was far more difficult than it was with AR. Merb right now is a big carrot for me and it has direct support (through gem dloads) for haml AND DataMapper so I think something truly great (or at least very exciting) is in the mix! Due to the fact that I am a coward however, I still use AR at work as I am very comfortable with it and I finally got used to a lot of it's black magic through method_missing craziness. Merb/DataMapper is a cinch to dload and set up so you should see it for yourself.. ilan -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.