4 ms·
As someone who's played the "Let's use Rails Admin, it's quick and easy... <time passes> Oh hell, the client wants to see what in there now? <much more time pas
by bshimmin 11y ago
As someone who's played the "Let's use Rails Admin, it's quick and easy... <time passes> Oh hell, the client wants to see what in there now? <much more time passes, punctuated by intense pain and misery> OK, maybe just building a custom admin interface from scratch would've been easier" game more times than I'd like to admit, I'm very keen to give this a try.
The "No DSLs" principle is particularly appealing to me.
- eminnett 11y agoIndeed.
- cageface 11y agoInteresting how the Ruby community has gone from seeing DSLs as a core virtue of Ruby to mostly a vice. Myself I'm mostly in the anti-DSL camp. I'd usually rather just deal with plain Ruby even if it's more verbose.
- bshimmin 11y agoI think it depends on the DSL (and perhaps what you're doing with it, perhaps not). I love RSpec's, I don't much like RailsAdmin's.
- seivan 11y agoI take it you've had a bad experience with ActiveAdmin? Even with its "DSL" (I wouldn't call it a DSL) it's pretty customisable and can do pretty much anything brought up in the article here http://activeadmin.info/docs/documentation.html http://activeadmin.info/docs/documentation.html
- bshimmin 11y agoRailsAdmin's "automatic" nature is a big win for us, whereas with ActiveAdmin we would have to write some code (even if it is easy code) to get us to the same point. For some of our projects RailsAdmin in its default state does the job excellently, without any fiddling; for other projects it starts out well and then goes downhill from there...