3 ms·
At least internally Rails 3 is a lot less crufty and hackish than Rails 2. If you ever tried writing your own plugins and such to deal with certain internals th
by cgoddard 15y ago
At least internally Rails 3 is a lot less crufty and hackish than Rails 2. If you ever tried writing your own plugins and such to deal with certain internals there is a lot to appreciate about Rails 3.
From a general use perspective, Rails has always been designed with a focus on intuitiveness and trying to eschew unnecessary configuration. Whether it succeeds on both fronts is a matter of opinion, but considering the types of configuration options it provides I think the team has done a pretty good job.
Rails is a pre-built web app architecture. Of course it is always going to be quicker and have less of a learning curve to just throw together your own simple app architecture from scratch. But if the app you're building isn't trivial, in most cases it's going to save you a lot of time (in not reinventing the wheel or getting caught in common pitfalls) to go with the prebuilt time-tested community-supported architecture.
I wouldn't think Rails compares too poorly to the PHP MVC frameworks. Sure if you're building just a simple sort of website with maybe a few forms go with framework-free PHP, but for more complex but somewhat standard web apps if you forgo the framework (for Ruby, PHP, etc.) it is usually a mistake.