

Why You Shouldn't Use Rails' Scaffolded Controllers - r00k
http://codeulate.com/2010/11/dont-use-rails-scaffolded-controllers/

======
rhizome
There is nothing in the post to indicate that the InheritedResources gem is
any more state of the art than standard scaffold controllers (which very few
if any users leave without modifications, contrary to the implication of the
article). It does seem to be replacing some implementation details with magic
in the pursuit of DRY, which is left unmentioned and invisible in the post,
but I don't see what advantage this has over the common technique of using a
before_filter that sets up commonly used variables and such.

The fact that the author uses dateless posts and comments (SEO) does not add
to its credibility for me, but user-hostile design sticks out like a sore
thumb for me so that could just be my own peccadillo.

~~~
r00k
Hi there! I'm the author. Thanks for your feedback.

> "There is nothing in the post to indicate that the InheritedResources gem is
> any more state of the art than standard scaffold controllers"

I think you may have missed my point (which, as the author, is probably my
fault) :) It's not that inherited_resources controllers _do_ anything better
than the standard controllers. It's that each controller does exactly the same
thing, _but one is 81 lines shorter._

> "The fact that the author uses dateless posts and comments (SEO) does not
> add to its credibility for me"

There are dates on each post (check the top left). Also, you say credibility
goes down because I have comments (which you seem to think are for SEO
purposes)? I'm afraid I don't follow at all.

~~~
rhizome
Ah, it's a design element. I actually remember looking at that area and
noticing the stitching and that the border looked nice, but to be honest my
brain only saw a Levi's tag hanging there (it didn't look like a date). Also,
there is no year. Anyway, mea culpa, I'll look harder next time.

Sure, it's 81 lines shorter, but I don't know what's going on there, either.
Its one thing to express a method in an elegant fashion, but an entirely
different thing to hide it off someplace, which is how I read what is
happening here. I'm guessing there are some instance variables available
afterwards? Plus, it's an additional dependency.

And yeah, I read the title "Why You Shouldn't Use Rails' Scaffolded
Controllers" and "...the state of the art has moved on" to mean that what you
were talking about was supposed to be better.

~~~
r00k
Yeah, fair enough, the date is a bit easy to miss. Not my favorite aspect of
the theme I'm using.

 _Sure, it's 81 lines shorter, but I don't know what's going on there,
either._

Sure, but I'd imagine most developers have the default controller actions
memorized by now (I do). So, this class you're inheriting from does exactly
what you're used to. Only now, you don't have repeated controller code and
functional tests everywhere. Really, this is an application of the DRY
principle to app/controllers.

