Design Element
Comment on "Apple Rails Article Has Subtle Message"
by Scott Stevenson — Mar 01
Cocoa != NSManagedObject, and Cocoa - NSManagedObject is still Cocoa. But Rails - ActiveRecord is what, exactly? It'd be like removing NSView from Cocoa

Hmmm, I think we just see things a bit differently.

I wouldn't judge ActiveRecord by the class declaration. I don't like dealing in the abstract for these things. My approach is to put it to use in an application using the recommended design patterns and see how well it works.

My personal experience with ActiveRecord is that it works quite well, and I haven't encountered any problems that I'd attribute to a shallow class hierarchy and/or limited compositing. In fact, I prefer a reserved design at this point, given the newness of the framework. I'd rather the class structure evolve naturally over time then have developers go crazy generating a web of code.

Certainly Cocoa and Rails are not identical, but I'm curious if you have specific issues with Rails that are due to class structure, or you'd just anticipate problems based on what you've seen?

I also really believe in recognizing that desktop and web apps are not the same thing. I know CEOs get all hyped up at the idea of app convergence, but it rarely pans out well. They're different mediums and I think they will be for at least a little while.

Were Cocoa more Rails-like, the source code, structure, and logic of all Cocoa apps would look a lot more similar than they do

Is that a bad thing? I think that's the direction we're heading in now with Core Data, Bindings and Xcode models.
Back to "Apple Rails Article Has Subtle Message"
Design Element

Copyright © Scott Stevenson 2004-2015