tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5299268788060304266.post2132182203905486402..comments2007-03-07T23:16:57.914-06:00James Dwyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00778440860367802024noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5299268788060304266.post-21070384858370047122007-03-07T23:16:00.000-06:002007-03-07T23:16:00.000-06:00Either way, if you don't remember what methods or fields a class has, you have to go somewhere to find that information out.<BR/><BR/>In Java, you can browse to 2 places (the class or the database). In Ruby, there is only one place you need to go, the database. Again, providing the "one stop", I know where to go to find out the information I need to know.<BR/><BR/>Ideally, your IDE would figure that out for you, and you can use autocompletion. I don't find it impossible to believe that Rails IDE's will eventually look to the database to figure out what fields a class has.James Dwyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00778440860367802024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5299268788060304266.post-17533595641880697852007-03-07T20:16:00.000-06:002007-03-07T20:16:00.000-06:00You're looking at this all wrong!<BR/><BR/>'Memetically speaking' from the database column name's point of view the Java ORM pattern is clearly superior.rexbothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09847216679580409489noreply@blogger.com