> However, it can make life difficult once you start straying from "their way" even if you know exactly what you're doing for even simple things like mapping to a legacy DB with schema intact (not gonna happen).
class Account < ActiveRecord::Base
set_table_name "tbl_accts"
has_many :posts, :class_name => "Post", :foreign_key => "postid"
end
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
set_table_name "tbl_posts"
belongs_to :account, :class_name => "Account", :foreign_key => "postid"
end
#Account.first.posts.create(:title => "test", :body => "test")
that's almost like child's play(code is not tested, but it looks like that.. and i'm pretty sure it's sitting there quite a while)..
> Conventions over configuration is nice but it requires some stability.
if you were to compare this with an agnostic framework with drop-in, you have to set everything. with rails, you just gonna say "oh, this isn't default so i have to explicitly set this".. or "oh, this is no longer default so i have to set this".. it's just a convention.. if you want to use rails in an unconventional way, by all means do it, you just have to know more about its internals if you intend to do this -- this makes sense when you think about it(you don't want to be hacking hard on a piece of software you don't really understand, you're going to want to know what you're doing so that you have a good idea when some unexpected problem arises).
>Part of the problem is the leadership. They take the stance, "you bastards are doing it wrong" if you want to do things a little different.
if you did that and decided there's really nothing out there that can solve your problem, they you can just implement it however you want, rails is very configurable, but really, you're just limited to what ruby can do..
>So saying dissenters are slow to learn, stubborn or haven't been writing tests really doesn't do anyone a service and doesn't make anything clearer, sorry.
i'm sorry, did the article speak to you this way? are you a girl where you might be giving meaning to what's actually being said?
> Conventions over configuration is nice but it requires some stability.
if you were to compare this with an agnostic framework with drop-in, you have to set everything. with rails, you just gonna say "oh, this isn't default so i have to explicitly set this".. or "oh, this is no longer default so i have to set this".. it's just a convention.. if you want to use rails in an unconventional way, by all means do it, you just have to know more about its internals if you intend to do this -- this makes sense when you think about it(you don't want to be hacking hard on a piece of software you don't really understand, you're going to want to know what you're doing so that you have a good idea when some unexpected problem arises).
>Part of the problem is the leadership. They take the stance, "you bastards are doing it wrong" if you want to do things a little different.
if you did that and decided there's really nothing out there that can solve your problem, they you can just implement it however you want, rails is very configurable, but really, you're just limited to what ruby can do..
>So saying dissenters are slow to learn, stubborn or haven't been writing tests really doesn't do anyone a service and doesn't make anything clearer, sorry.
i'm sorry, did the article speak to you this way? are you a girl where you might be giving meaning to what's actually being said?