[thelist] Ruby on Rails: why?

[Fred Jones]

> So if one has a central batch of function (method) libraries, which  
> can be appended to projects as required, then that amounts to the  
> same thing? RoR is simply a framework of libraries, which developers  
> can use to create apps and dynamically-driven website?

No, RoR (and CakePHP) are MVC, which is something more than just a 
library of functions.

> That certainly makes sense, though if I've been using the concept of  
> separation between content, layout and functionality for nearly ten  
> years, building new globally useful library methods every week, then  
> does that amount to the same thing?

MVC is indeed a method of separating data, logic and presentation. So 
could be it is the same thing. A major advantage of RoR or CakePHP is 
that there is a team of developers contributing to and constantly 
improving the framework.

> OK, I retract what I said; what I actually meant was poor code in  
> terms of code which isn't *quite* right for our application, so that  
> it always has to be modified and often has to be improved or extended.

Without specific examples that's quite a sweeping statement. :)

>> Definitely, definitely take a look at using MVC frameworks if you  
>> spend any time building data-driven applications. The investment in  
>> time getting familiar with the MVC way of 'doing things' will be  
>> paid off many times over.
> 
> Do you have any links you can share? It sounds as though I've been  
> doing this for many years, and that (for example) RoR is simply the  
> most recent and popular framework.

I myself don't know nor use RoR, but you can see these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-controller
http://cakephp.org/

:)

Fred