Topic: "Legacy" database and scaffold
Although I haven't tried it, I'm sure setting up the standard rails cookbook database and instant-app works just dandy. So I'm sure that rails really does allow an application to be set up in 10% of the time required to set one up under other app frameworks. But I'm not interested in toy demos.
In the real world, systems that operate by the grace of naming conventions simply do not work. Especially when the naming convention applies to database table names (and incidentally is exactly wrong -- table names should be singular if you really care about it one way or the other).
I have tried everything I can think of or google, and I can't get scaffolding with existing database names to work. It does seem odd to me that the most natural-seeming thing I want to do -- set up rails in 10% of the time, but running from one actual existing table, instead of from a toy table -- seems impossible. Or at least very difficult. Certainly not something that can be done (by me) in 10% of the time.
I've come away from my first few days of tinkering with rails with the impression that it is a toy (but a magnificently hyped one!). Can anyone tell me what I'm missing -- what's the magic trick of hanging a rails app on an existing table using scaffolding? Not using scaffolding is an unacceptable answer -- then I'll be spending ages trying to understand the ruby/rails nuances that the hype has promised me I don't need to wrestle with.