Pros/Cons of Turbogears/Rails?

[fuzzylollipop]

Paul Boddie wrote:
> fuzzylollipop wrote:
> > Paul Boddie wrote:
> > > > fuzzylollipop wrote:
> > > > > uh, no, Python predates Ruby by a good bit
> > > > > Rails might be "older" than Turbogears but it still JUST went 1.0
> > > > > officially.
> > > > > It can't be called "mature' by any defintition.
> > >
> > > Version numbers are a fairly useless general metric of project
> > > maturity, taken in isolation.
> >
> > But 1.0 releases do mean something, it means the DEVELOPER of the
> > package things it is just now ready for general consumption. That means
> > something regardless of what the number is.
>
> In various open source circles, the mere usage of 1.0 may indicate some
> kind of stability, but not necessarily maturity, or at least the desire
> of the developers to persuade users that the code is ready for them to
> use.

nope in GENERAL usage, 1.x means that the developer is designating a
version that is feature complete and stable. I never ever mentioned
comparing version numbers between differing packages.

MY POINT was the developers of Rails JUST RECENTLY decided that it was
ready for general consumption compared to all the PREVIOUS Rails
releases.

And NONE of these frameworks has been used to power anything along the
scale of what I work with on a daily basis.

And speaking from experience, autogenerated "Active Object Pattern"
frameworks dont' scale. And Rails is no exception. It didn't work 10
years ago when all the ORM vendors were selling ridiculously price
"point and click" database application builders, what makes people
think it will now?