Game over. We lost. Nothing to see here, move along.

Aaron Trevena aaron.trevena at
Sat Nov 19 16:14:57 GMT 2005

On 11/19/05, Simon Wilcox <essuu at> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > For example, if you know TT then you're good to go with Catalyst and
> > start writing views. If you know Mason, ditto. And so on. There's no
> > requirement whatsoever to learn any of those other options.
> The corollary to that being that if you're not familar with any of those
> options the choice is too bewildering, you give up and go and use Rails
> instead. Sometimes choice is a bad thing.

Also you won't get the same level of support, documentation and
cohesion. One of the reasons Rails so robust and easy to use is that
default combination of tools works well together. The same applies to
Maypole, and we've added a great deal of documentation including stuff
on the default underlying technology.

> It also seems to be the case that there is often one lead choice and if
> you want to use something different you enter a world of pain. c.f.
> earlier discussion of Maypole and Sybase.

I think the problem there would be as bad or worse with other ORMs, I
could be wrong but you're probably more likely to find somebody has
already solved the problem in a mature and popular library than one
that is a couple of months old.

Of course - if you bother to ask for support then frequently you get
it, or at least pointed to somewhere that provides more information
and help.



More information about the mailing list