Hacker News Reader

The Railiens make a big fuss about favoring convention over configuration, and of course they picked the most bone-headed, moronic conventions imaginable, like coupling data objects to the database, using pluralized table names

He's entitled to his opinion, as is DHH. But for my money: why are Rails' conventions "moronic"? What the heck is wrong with coupling data objects to a db?? He'd prefer something more awkward and arcane?

View on HN

Well, the specific example of using pluralised table names works in English, and completely unworks in many many other languages, for a start.

Hell, it doesn't even completely work in English, either. Not all English words are pluralised simply by adding a trailing 's'.

Sometimes I, as a Rails developer, forget which is supposed to be pluralized, the model or the table. (Gah!)

Still, Rails' pluralization algorithm is savvy enough to know when it can't just add an 's'. Most of the time, it works.

If you don't like it -- like most things in Rails -- you can just turn it off with one option.

It's the fact that you're allowed to dislike features like that, and make them go away, that makes me wonder how people can hate on it. It's opinionated, but it's not dogmatic.

Which is why you can add inflections in Rails. It even comes with a reasonable set to cover the most common exceptions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com