Comments on: Ruby on Rails: Not So Productive? http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/05/ruby_on_rails_not_so_productive/ Nerds are for Dorks Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:14:48 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: ct http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/05/ruby_on_rails_not_so_productive/comment-page-1/#comment-15545 ct Wed, 11 May 2005 18:44:26 +0000 http://forevergeek.com/?p=1640#comment-15545 They guy makes a sober, and limited argument about the /initial/ productivity gains attainable with Rails: "the obvious conclusion from which is that the (code) generation steps have to be considered to be a one-shot deal". That is reasonable, but you cannot dismiss the whole framework just because the impact of code generation is limited to the first stages. And people keep equating Rails with Ruby. The argument has been made that Rails could not be without Ruby, but the language is a lot more than Rails. The author goes on to say down on the comments: "the only thing that makes Rails libraries better/easier to use/more elegant than the Java alternatives is the language itself,". They guy makes a sober, and limited argument about the /initial/ productivity gains attainable with Rails: “the obvious conclusion from which is that the (code) generation steps have to be considered to be a one-shot deal”.

That is reasonable, but you cannot dismiss the whole framework just because the impact of code generation is limited to the first stages.

And people keep equating Rails with Ruby. The argument has been made that Rails could not be without Ruby, but the language is a lot more than Rails. The author goes on to say down on the comments: “the only thing that makes Rails libraries better/easier to use/more elegant than the Java alternatives is the language itself,”.

]]>