On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Frederick Cheung < frederick.che...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 28, 5:18 pm, egervari <ken.egerv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One thing I don't necessarily like about Rails is that whenever you > > want to do something that is out of the norm just a bit - but not > > unreasonable by any means - the "how" is very different than what your > > intuition would come up with. > > > > It's not a problem when you know the exceptions, but when you're > > learning, this sort of irregularity and inconsistency on how to do > > things makes it harder to learn - not easier. > > > > Java might be initially harder to learn, but it's way more consistent. > > Your intuition can take you a lot further once you think in Java. This > > is not true once you think in Rails. Rails is about memorization of > > methods to call and memorization on how to do things. In java, you can > > reason it out a lot more. > > > I'm slightly confused by you making comparisons between a language and > a framework - I'm sure there are a wide variety of java web frameworks > that all do things differently. I can't say I've ever found rails to > be a tedious memorisation exercise. It just sounds like you don't > understand enough about rails to let your intuition guide you. > You might find that association callbacks are a good fit for your > original problem (and callbacks of that sort are used fairly > extensively in rails) > > Fred. > > > > I'm just disappointed. This is a reoccurring pattern for me - I want > > do something that is just "a little more complex" than the framework > > examples... and the "how" is inconsistent and takes 30 minutes or > > maybe even hours to locate and find the answer for it. > > > > I realize I'm just learning Rails, but I have dozens of gotchas and > > inconsistencies as I go through the framework and use it. This is not > > accounting for weird gem errors, rake version problems, etc. If I only > > kept track of a list of all the problems that probably shouldn't have > > been problems to start with to illustrate what I am saying :( > > I am also wondering if there is a better way to achieve what you want -- I dont completely understand what you are trying to do above other than manage 'Re' or no 'Re' in the subject (I am assuming you are doing a messaging or email-like system). If there is any way to do something and not 'fight' rails, in my experience it is almost always better.... to Frederic's point, to not fight rails (and ruby) you must understand it. That is easier said than done, I often find simple ways to do what I had tried to do before in a more complex/hacking manner. For that reason it may be better to step back and state your primary goal, not the proposed fix/aproach... then you might have some more constructive response from the list. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
