What in the world can't be done by SQL when talking to a properly designed RDBMS other then record-at-a-time processing which isn't using a relational approach at all?
nandelin@xxxxxxxxx 9/29/2006 12:01 >>>
That is funny, Aaron. I plan on making a couple more trips to B & N next week. It seems that a database that's not properly normalized will cause problems for any object-relational mapping scheme, and there are some things that can't even be done by falling back to strait SQL, and you'll need RPG to fill in the gaps. I don't know when I'll get around to doing anything in Rails, myself. But there are a lot of good ideas in it that I think are appealing to Web application developers, particularly those struggling with J2EE. Nathan. ----- Original Message ---- From: albartell <albartell@xxxxxxxxx> To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 11:52:15 AM Subject: Re: [WEB400] More Impressions of Ruby on Rails
During the past few weeks I've been dropping by Barnes and Noble in
the evening, I have gone to B&N since this post began also and each time it has either been AJAX or RoR books :-) Too funny...
Ruby's philosophy of "convention over configuration" makes sense to
me. I think that simplicity is great. The part I would have a problem with is when I had to work around it - say I didn't create the database and instead it was created by an RPG programmer w/o any DB imposed relationships built in. I am hoping you pick up RoR and do a project with it because I would love to hear your opinion after that so I could save myself from the pain :-) Aaron Bartell