Without context the question lacks impact, however if the situation is grim enough that one is considering imposing rationing to make sure everyone survives, or at least has some modicum of comfort, it's certainly better than most of the other options. Seeing as they usually involved the strongest man or group with all the food, and everyone else working the fields..
When an area has problems with supply, I feel rationing, even if unpopular, is better than other options. I think rationing gives everyone a chance to at least obtain a part of the supply rather than some people not getting any at all. I'm not really aware of any other option that guarantees some type of fairness.
Fortunately this question is mostly moot in today's world because resources are not scarce in most parts of the world. Where there is scarcity, it is usually do to poor distribution of wealth, with the rich or military classes taking all the food, water, etc. In these situations, it would be far better to ration goods than allow a few to live luxurious while others suffer privation.
Though rationing is unpopular amongst large groups it is often a smart choice. No matter what you are rationing, food or money or supplies it is important to see that these items are not wasted and put to good use. It's always wise to consider all of the options before choosing one and rationing is one to carefully look at.
No, the idea of rationing, even if unpopular, is not better than other options, because we can allow prices to adjust to reflect the new amount. If prices are allowed to rise in response to a shortage, the people who value the product the most will spend their money to buy the product.