Re:Rails zealots aren't hammers, they're just tool (Score 1)

I have started a new web project and looked at RoR. Having done an app with Tapestry/Spring/Hibernate, I was sick of all the work one has to do to bring up a bunch of views in a browser and then persist results. I love RoR and Ruby for all the reasons mentioned in TFA. Note - I don't like the pluralisation default, but one can easily turn it off by setting the following in config/environment.rb:

# Include your application configuration below
ActiveRecord::Base.pluralize_table_names = false

There were two scalability concerns I had about RoR:

(1) Ruby is interpreted and 'slow' - however, the JRuby team (http://headius.blogspot.com/) is working on running Ruby within a JVM (currently interpreted, but they are starting on a compiler). When they get to 1.0, the compiler won't be as good as Sun's, but it will probably be "good enough"

(2) RoR uses the Active Record Pattern and Hibernate uses the Data Mapper Pattern (http://www.theserverside.com/tt/articles/article. tss?l=RailsHibernate). The Data Mapper Pattern is almost certainly more efficient when implemented well (as Hibernate does). The coolest thing about Hibernate is that it is much more efficient than I am without a big effort on the persistence side, and I am concerned that Active Record will not be nearly as good. However, what are the odds that someone (or some group of people) will work on implementing a persistence solution within Rails that uses the Data Mapper Pattern? Pretty good, I would say. Once again, it probably won't be as good as Gavin King's work, but it will be "good enough". And if someone else does not do it, maybe I will start the project.

Given the above and the speed with which one can develop in RoR, the choice was obvious, to go with Ruby and Rails.