Note: Read the description and explanation of the tournament.
These two competitors are pretty much mirrors of the other.
Ruby on Rails, the highly regarded (and publicized) is a full stack framework
based on the Ruby language. It features an easy to use ORM implementation called ActiveRecord.
It is strongly MVC.
Documentation and support a real strength here.
Need to learn Ruby to use this. (both finalists are based on a scriptig language)
Uses ActiveRecord for ORM integration.
Ruby templates for view.
Grails is a relatively new framework based on Groovy, a Java implementation scripting language designed to be most
like Java itself while providing the advantages of a dynamically typed language.
MVC model, much based on ROR
has its own templating view technology (GSP)
based on Spring MVC and Spring, Hibernate for ORM
need to learn Groovy
GORM – built in ORM based on Hibernate
View
ROR: 9 G: 9
AJAX support
ROR: 4 G: 3
Documentation
ROR: 10 G: 8
Backward compatibility
ROR: 3 G: 3
Support
ROR: 10 G: 8
Database integration
ROR: 5 G: 7
Integration
ROR: 5 G: 7
Internationalization
ROR: 3 G: 3
How complex is it
ROR: 9 G: 9
Abstraction
ROR: 3 G: 3
Separation of concerns
ROR: 6 G: 6
file upload
ROR: 4 G: 4
plug in SSO
ROR: 4 G: 4
final:
JROR 75 Grails 74
May 12, 2008 at 7:45 am
Where did all the numbers came out? Are you making this up? Coz I think Grails is much better than Rails.
May 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Hmm, yes and no. The scores are sort of like a modified Pugh matrix (management is familiar with these) where I compared criteria and a judgment comparing the relative strengths of all the criteria. Note that the criteria include documentation and support (published books/materials, user community size, etc), not simply technical merits of the frameworks. Grails I think did come out slightly ahead on technical criteria.
May 16, 2008 at 9:08 am
Hi,
What about Jboss Seam in this tournament??
May 16, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Seam isn’t a web framework by itself, it has to be used with a framework, which would likely be JSF. I suppose I could have selected a ‘JSF stack’, like JSF/Facelets/Seam/Ajax4JSF/RichFaces, etc. but I went with entering JSF alone, with the acknowledging that integration libraries are available to carry out tasks not in the spec.