# RoR sucks, and heres why **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [January 5, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746 "2006-01-05T18:02:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/1 "2006-01-05T18:02:34Z")
Well now that I got your attention… Why RoR sucks: 1. It’s smarter than me. Just when I think I’ll have to do some mundane thing (like I use to in PHP or ASP), I find out RoR does it already for me. 2. It takes about half or less code to put my stuff together in RoR than it did in PHP, ASP, [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET), etc. It seems so unnatural that I can have a method with only 4 lines of code, and three of those were error handling - YET it does what it should, no fuss, no muss. 3. I use to worry about giving my client an estimate and then running over the alloted hours BIGTIME. Now, RoR has me UNDER the hours consistently. I feel so dirty now still giving my old school estimates that ASP smashed into my head repeatedly knowing I had to hand hold it all the way. 4. I can finally take those jobs that require “the other” databases like Postgresql, MySQL, etc. without rewritting my data layer. 5. RoR took away my connection strings! Now its just too easy 🙂 6. RoR makes it easy to run tests across my code, next it will generate docs for me from my code … oh wait it’s buddy RDoc does that now… 7. I use to enjoy those frustrating nights banging my head against the wall trying to figure out why my site worked on Windows 2000 but not Windows 2003, now with RoR, my sites “just work”. 8. Now when I see a .NET article I cannot seem to stop yawning. How many MSDN magazines now sit beside my desk STILL in their plastic wrappers? 9. AJAX in a few lines of code?!?!? But, but [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) taught me it takes a good 20+ lines AT LEAST. In case someone hasn’t caught on yet (their flame throwers ready at hand) – RoR doesn’t suck. Just thought I’d add that in in case someone didn’t have a sense of humor 🙂 - Mark ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2006, 6:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/2 "2006-01-05T18:38:37Z")
Yeah, I see what you mean. RoR really does kick butt, er, suck. =-D Mark H. wrote: > Well now that I got your attention… > > In case someone hasn’t caught on yet (their flame throwers ready at > hand) – RoR doesn’t suck. Just thought I’d add that in in case someone > didn’t have a sense of humor 🙂 > > - Mark ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/3 "2006-01-05T19:57:30Z")
> In case someone hasn’t caught on yet (their flame throwers ready at > hand) – RoR doesn’t suck. Just thought I’d add that in in case someone > didn’t have a sense of humor 🙂 1. It made me hate my non-rails job using [ASP.Net](http://ASP.Net) 🙂 – rick [http://techno-weenie.net](http://techno-weenie.net) ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/4 "2006-01-05T20:45:36Z")
+1 Doing maintenance on an [asp.net](http://asp.net) CRM now feels very painful. Now if rails could get a reporting component like Microsoft Reporting Services that would be amazing… Zack ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/5 "2006-01-05T21:18:38Z")
On 1/5/06, Mark H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Well now that I got your attention… > > Why RoR sucks: > 1. RoR took away my connection strings! Now its just too easy 🙂 Connectionstrings are so hard 😛 > 1. I use to enjoy those frustrating nights banging my head against the > wall trying to figure out why my site worked on Windows 2000 but not > Windows 2003, now with RoR, my sites “just work”. Now there’s something I won’t see me doing 😛 > 1. AJAX in a few lines of code?!?!? But, but [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) taught me it takes > a good 20+ lines AT LEAST. [www.comfortasp.de](http://www.comfortasp.de) 0 lines of code AJAX (or something like it) Seriously though I do agree with the other points 😛 ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/6 "2006-01-05T21:36:39Z")
On 1/5/06, mischa kroon [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > 1. AJAX in a few lines of code?!?!? But, but [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) taught me it takes > > a good 20+ lines AT LEAST. > > [www.comfortasp.de](http://www.comfortasp.de) > > 0 lines of code AJAX (or something like it) That page is completely blank in Safari. Sounds like they have some catching up to do. – sam ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 8:25am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/7 "2006-01-06T08:25:32Z")
1. That Zed asshole _still_ hasn’t released a new version of SCGI. Dammit things have to be released frequently or they will not work well. Where the hell is he? Zed A. Shaw > **[Zed A. shaw](https://zedshaw.com/)** > > Personal essays and writings by Zed A. Shaw. ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 9:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/8 "2006-01-06T09:07:34Z")
_10. It made me hate my non-rails job using [ASP.Net](http://ASP.Net) 🙂_ I second that! (Only I use PHP, not ASP.) I’ll be the only coder there in about two weeks - I should tell them I’ll quit too unless they go balls to the wall with RoR. =D * * * ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/9 "2006-01-07T13:37:03Z")
Here, here. =) -c ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/10 "2006-01-07T13:37:04Z")
Why RoR Sucks (cont.) 1. I spend 2 hours trying to figure out a difficult way to display action logic only to find that RoR already had a 30 sec remedy. 2. The RoR community actually replies to [NOOB] posts. 3. I don’t get to spend 3 months getting my head around a deployment container only to discover that it really is possessed by a whip lashing sadist demon. On 1/5/06, @ wrath. rubyonrails. com wrote: > * * * > > Rails mailing list > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > [http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails](http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails) – ```auto D'Andrew "Dave" Thompson http://dathompson.blogspot.com ``` ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/11 "2006-01-07T13:37:05Z")
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:06:18AM -0600, Rick O. wrote: } \> In case someone hasn’t caught on yet (their flame throwers ready at } \> hand) – RoR doesn’t suck. Just thought I’d add that in in case someone } \> didn’t have a sense of humor 🙂 } } 10. It made me hate my non-rails job using [ASP.Net](http://ASP.Net) 🙂 Amusing, but… actually, I’d say both have their place. When it comes to quick and dirty, nothing beats Rails. When it comes to highly complex, data-backed user interface controls, nothing beats [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) (particularly several third-party controls). Everything in between is up for grabs. I would like to emphasize that data-backed, third-party controls are a big deal. It was really great on my last [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) project to be able to buy a tree control that just pretty much worked on the data I was reading from the DB. It saved me at least a week of development time, if not more, and that’s a minor example. That said, I think I enjoy [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) and Rails development pretty equally. The community (mailing list and IRC) for Ruby/Rails is a damn sight better than [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) when you get stuck, though. } rick –Greg ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/12 "2006-01-07T13:37:06Z")
> That said, I think I enjoy [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) and Rails development pretty equally. > The community (mailing list and IRC) for Ruby/Rails is a damn sight better > than [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) when you get stuck, though. I don’t count the fact that it requires a 752 page book (see Developing Microsoft [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) Server Controls and Components) to write server controls a plus. Rails isn’t, and will never be a way to drag and drop your way to a beautiful site. So, there is of course plenty of room for other frameworks. All I was saying is that [ASP.Net](http://ASP.Net) doesn’t make me happy. It gives me a feeling of “holy crap, it actually worked” if anything 🙂 – rick [http://techno-weenie.net](http://techno-weenie.net) ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/13 "2006-01-07T13:37:06Z")
On 1/5/06, Rick O. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I don’t count the fact that it requires a 752 page book (see > Developing Microsoft [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) Server Controls and Components) to write > server controls a plus. You don’t have to write the things 😛 You just have to implement them, like Rails… you don’t have to write it to use it 🙂 And usually the docs for how to use server controls are a lot smaller then 752 pages. But a bit better documented then most open source solutions 😛 \> All I was saying is that ASP.Net doesn't make me happy. \> It gives me a feeling of "holy crap, it actually worked" if anything \> :) \> Thats the case in any environment that your not used to 🙂 Writing your first bits in Rails is sure to have given you the same feeling 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/14 "2006-01-07T13:37:05Z")
> It saved me at least a week of development time, if not more, and > that’s a minor example. ## The lure of components is directly proportional with the pain of development. David Heinemeier H. [http://www.loudthinking.com](http://www.loudthinking.com) – Broadcasting Brain [http://www.basecamphq.com](http://www.basecamphq.com) – Online project management [http://www.backpackit.com](http://www.backpackit.com) – Personal information manager [http://www.rubyonrails.com](http://www.rubyonrails.com) – Web-application framework ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/15 "2006-01-07T13:37:06Z")
On 1/6/06, mischa kroon [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > All I was saying is that [ASP.Net](http://ASP.Net) doesn’t make me happy. > > It gives me a feeling of “holy crap, it actually worked” if anything > > 🙂 > > Thats the case in any environment that your not used to 🙂 > Writing your first bits in Rails is sure to have given you the same feeling 🙂 Developing my first Rails project (which was also my first real exposure to Ruby) left me with a feeling of pure joy and rekindled my love of programming (which, after a few years as an [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) programmer, was in serious need of revival). That being said, I agree that different projects call for different tools, but I’m yet to find one that calls for [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) over Ruby on Rails. Ben ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/16 "2006-01-07T13:37:08Z")
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:19:12PM -0600, Rick O. wrote: […] } I don’t count the fact that it requires a 752 page book (see } Developing Microsoft [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) Server Controls and Components) to write } server controls a plus. Er, what? It takes a fair amount of work to give your control a fancy [VS.NET](http://VS.NET) designer interface, but it’s absolutely trivial to create a control in general. More to the point, I was primarily talking about using, rather than developing, controls. } Rails isn’t, and will never be a way to drag and drop your way to a } beautiful site. So, there is of course plenty of room for other } frameworks. All I was saying is that [ASP.Net](http://ASP.Net) doesn’t make me happy. } It gives me a feeling of “holy crap, it actually worked” if anything } 🙂 Heh. Well, I’ve been doing dynamic web development since 1994 (yes, really). I have used all of the following technologies, roughly in chronological order: 1. make and cpp to produce static files from dynamic data 2. CGI scripts in C with Remote Database Access (yeah, you’ve never heard of it, nor should you have) 3. CGI scripts in C with embedded SQL (ew) 4. CGI scripts in C++ (or maybe it was C) to produce interactive VRML 1.0 5. Client-side Java (it’s dynamic web, kind of, it just isn’t HTML) 6. JSP + JDBC 7. Struts + JSP + iBatis 8. (modifying other people’s) PHP 9. [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) + [ADO.NET](http://ADO.NET) (C#) 10. Ruby + RoR Of these, I’ve managed to actually enjoy numbers 4, 6, 9, and 10. Having used all of those, I would avoid to the best of my ability anything other than [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) and RoR. They were the only two where I didn’t feel like I had succeeded in doing something difficult that I wouldn’t want to repeat. (Well, the Apache2/fcgid/RoR integration kind of felt like that, but it wasn’t too bad.) An important advantage of C# (or even [VB.NET](http://VB.NET), when strict) over Ruby is static type analysis. While duck typing and extraordinary dynamism is a pleasure to work with, one loses the ability to rely on a compiler to verify that the objects one is attempting to work with are actually going to match the use one is putting them to (i.e. conforming to an interface). I do not claim that C# or [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) are “better” than Ruby or RoR. I will claim that there is a place for each, and that one should use the right tool for the job. (Note that this does not apply to two tools that are for the same job, such as Java and .NET; C#/.NET really are as good or better than Java in every way other than platform independence, and the Mono folks are working on that.) } rick –Greg ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 10:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/17 "2006-01-07T22:12:01Z")
n+1. Rails makes you less macho. You won’t be able to relate to those surly, curmudgeony, masochistic C, C++, C#, and Java developers who have done many times more heavy lifting by writing far more code; been super anal-retentive in getting definitions and syntax correct; gotten a wide array of technologies to work together; and rolled many of their own reinvented wheels many-a-time. It’s like those people who drive older cars and can - and have - rebuilt their own transmissions, engines, etc. vs. those wimps who spend all their car time actually driving and Getting Stuff Done. n+2. Rails makes you less smart. Unlike those PHP developers who Know Everything and prove it by writing yet another template engine, framework, etc. ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/18 "2006-01-07T13:37:06Z")
On 1/5/06, Ben M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > exposure to Ruby) left me with a feeling of pure joy and rekindled my > love of programming (which, after a few years as an [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) > programmer, was in serious need of revival). > > That being said, I agree that different projects call for different > tools, but I’m yet to find one that calls for [ASP.NET](http://ASP.NET) over Ruby on > Rails. > > Ben Just out of curiousity, which language did you use under .Net ? ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 10:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/19 "2006-01-07T22:58:52Z")
In the interests of starting a more serious discussion of problems with Rails: 1. The internals are undocumented and sparsely commented, making it difficult to patch when you discover yet another bug. 2. Non-trivial patches only get applied if they affect the core team. 3. Implementing new features takes priority over fixing bugs. 4. There are a lot of bugs. 5. There are numerous cases where Rails will die without any feedback to the administrator or user. 6. It’s slower than other frameworks (if you can’t use caching). 7. It consumes a lot of RAM. 8. def many\_method\_names\_are\_really\_long\_like\_this\_one; end I like Rails and I think it is the best web framework for my needs, but there are still a lot of problems with it. ---
**Author:** ![markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@markh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markh)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 12:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746/20 "2006-01-08T00:23:12Z")
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 01:56:44PM -0800, Jeremy E. wrote: > In the interests of starting a more serious discussion of problems with Rails: As a core member I’ll respond to some of the issues you bring up. > 1. The internals are undocumented and sparsely commented, making it > difficult to patch when you discover yet another bug. When you run up against internal code that is poorly documented or not documented at all and struggle to figure out how it works, documentation patches would be appreciated. We work hard to make the outward facing API always backwards compatible. Documentation is like code. The more you write the more you have to maintain, so we privilege the public API over the private API in this regard, as the internals tend to be refactored more frequently (which requires the overhead of documentation updates). Also, those delving into the internals are likely more able to determine how they work. Point taken though. Rails would likely benefit from some more documentation of the internals. Again, patches welcome. Documentation patches don’t require tests 😉 > 1. Non-trivial patches only get applied if they affect the core team. If a patch is non-trivial it needs to be well tested. If it doesn’t apply cleanly the core team doesn’t have the time to make it unless it is really important. If it is well tested then it still takes time to evaluate. That’s how open source works. There are two sides to everything. I take issue with the “only get applied if they affect the core team” part. As a member of the core team who has taken the time to apply, test and commit plenty of code that has nothing to do with me I can’t accept such a broad claim. We try to make an effort to express in ticket comments when a patch is not complete or needs more work. If a patch is of high quality, well tested and appropriate for inclusion in Rails then it is often applied relatively expediently. In the cases where this does not happen I apologize. Gentle pestering on the rails-core list is encouraged. Gentle… You may take issue with what “appropriate for inclusion in Rails” means. Rails came out of David and 37signals’ needs for Basecamp so it has its original motivations springing out of necessity. The core team does have needs in the applications they build. David, for example, had a need for tagging in Sunrise. But he did not add a tagging framework to Rails. Instead, after implementing a tagging system he was happy with, he extracted the higher level database relationship model (the new polymorphic associations) into ActiveRecord. In other words, there is a distinction to be made between people’s needs and thing that are appropriate to the framework. We ultimately are the judge of what the appropriate level is. If it’s at the framework level and is a good fit for Rails, it goes in. Scott B., a core team member with the keys to the svn repository, is using the plugin system in Rails for several of his projects. He has needs for his apps but recognizes they don’t fit in on the framework level. The relatively high barrier of entry to patch submissions is also largely the reason why you like Rails so much. We say no before we say yes. > 1. Implementing new features takes priority over fixing bugs. Rails has been in growth mode for a while. With the release of 1.0 we have said, “This has enough features.” The 1.0 branch will only receive bug fixes now. Rails hasn’t stopped its development but non of the core team has an interest in making it huge and bloated so a lot of the work post 1.0 is going into the tools used in conjunction with Rails and not as much on Rails itself. Either way, new features will be implemented and bugs will be fixed. We could all spend more time fixing bugs but as the considerable test coverage of Rails indicates, its code health is good. > 1. There are a lot of bugs. Undeniably, there are many pending bug reports. There is a distinction, though, between there being many tickets and many egregious bugs. Rails is always going to have bugs. A lot of bugs, though, are edge cases or otherwise not a priority so simply going off the number of pending bug reports is not the whole picture. Regardless, if you are so inclined go through and identify, say, the 10 most critical bugs as you see it and post their ticket numbers to the core mailing list making a case. Help prioritizing bug reports would be appreciated. > 1. It’s slower than other frameworks (if you can’t use caching). Rails privileges programmer productivity over execution speed. Always has and will. As does Ruby itself. That aside, the core team is mindful of performance and we are working closely with Stefan K. who has taken it upon himself to work exclusively on Rails performance. I personally spent over 20 hours for the 0.13.x release integrating his performance work into Rails. So, Rails is slower than other frameworks. There are other criteria by which it can be compared to those same frameworks as well. Ruby 2, out there in the distance, will likely make that a non issue. Rails is most of the time fast enough. There are real world apps with lots of traffic backing that claim. > 1. def many\_method\_names\_are\_really\_long\_like\_this\_one; end What is the problem with this? You _want_ intension revealing method names. Your text editor should alleviate the hassle of typing the whole thing out. > I like Rails and I think it is the best web framework for my needs, > but there are still a lot of problems with it. Thanks for the list. It’s very useful to have people who like Rails pointing out what they don’t like rather than people who’ve already made up their mind to hate it looker for things to throw rocks at. So I do really appreciate your candor. I’m all for people willing to help. marcel [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-sucks-and-heres-why/90746.md?page=2)