3 ms·
He lost me at #1. Technically, there's so many things Rails and Ruby can do that PHP can't. If he means it pragmatically (they're both data/web connect-o-thingi
by neilk 19y ago
He lost me at #1. Technically, there's so many things Rails and Ruby can do that PHP can't. If he means it pragmatically (they're both data/web connect-o-thingies), then he has a point.
- Jd 19y ago<<So many things Rails and Ruby can do that PHP can't>> Meta-programming? What else? Do you mean the language or accompanying libraries?
- drm237 19y agoIt's interesting that no one has a problem comparing a Framework to a straight-up language. You'll never get an accurate comparison this way and I think that's a huge point. Everyone marvels at what RoR can achieve in terms of logic/decision/data/presentation separation, but doesn't take into account that there are probably 20 or so PHP frameworks that also implement the MVC approach and do a lot of the same things while maintaining the flexibility of php.
- spiralhead 19y agoArguably, Ruby does things better/lighter/cleaner/more elegantly than PHP, but at the end of the day, they're both accomplishing the same business objective. And when the end result is the same, what PHP provides in the way of stability/industry uptake/user community/compatibility outweighs whatever gains in "programmer happiness" and all the other intangibles commonly flailed about by the Ruby/Rails community.