via Slashdot, an article on Ruby on Rails.
Maybe you’ve heard about Ruby on Rails, the super productive new
way to develop web applications, and you’d like to give it a try, but you don’t
know anything about Ruby or Rails. This article steps through the development
of a web application using Rails. It won’t teach you how to program in Ruby,
but if you already know another object-oriented programming language, you should
have no problem following along (and at the end you can find links on learning
Ruby).
Now maybe I’m just a bit biased since my framework isn’t getting all the slashdotters oohing and awwing over it, but I think Ruby on Rails is way over hyped. The tutorial here is great and gave me a very good overview of what it does. At the end of the day, RoR is simply a RESTful CRUD framework.
There isn’t anything wrong with that. I think we need more of these “low barrier” frameworks. However, to proclaim that RoR revolutionizes web application development is just ludicrous. Anyone who has written a very large application (thousands of concurrent users and/or hundreds of thousands of gigabytes) knows that a CRUD framework just doesn’t cut it. Mapping web UI directly to the DB never scales.
Form processing, payroll, etc probably work very well with RoR. But trying to implement Spoke using RoR would be impossible — the schema is just too complex.
One thing that is certain: the RoR (and LAMP, I suppose) crowd sure does have a great marketing effort. Once I finish my book, I plan to do a better job letting the world know about all the awesome things at OpenSymphony and other Java open source products.
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 2:17 pm
You underestimate it based on the demos. You can use any database access technique you like, TapKit is a nicem though poorly documented in English as yet, O/R tool, plain DBI is really nice in Ruby, as are a kabillkion others, or you can abstract it yourself.
Seriously, what does Webwork help with a complex schema? The two are unreleated. If ActiveRecord doesn’t solve your problem, don’t use it, or don’t use it for that part. It is one part of Rails (a really nice part, mind).
I’ve used (and quite enjoyed) webwork 1 and 2, but if you think that because the samples done in beginner tutorials are simple the framework is for toy projects, try it for a while and ask again, and try it without going into it wanting to hate it =)
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 4:09 pm
re comment on my blog: It wasn’t really a direct reaction to your post, yours just tipped the scale by a narrow margin =) The main things going through my mind when I was writing it were the level of complete not understanding the related technologies in the flamewars about JDO on TSS, Miguel de Icaza’s left and right slamming of Java when he doesn’t even know it (his own admission), and the reading of slashdot comments (I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the typical /. commenter).
Hitting the blog of someone who I respect a great deal and having them declare something is crap because of X when the choice of example demonstrates that they don’t know what the something actually does was just too much =)
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 6:39 pm
“I think Ruby on Rails is way over hyped”
Patrick Lightbody is on the steering committee of the Java web-framework WebWork and not at all happy about all the…
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Wow. Please inform me of how WebWorks kicks RoR ass? You say its a CRUD framework, can I have a better example of why?
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Brian, sorry I offended. I didn’t mean to come out swinging so hard, I guess I sort of just got pushed a little too far myself. I’m so tired of seeing all these idiots on Slashdot freaking out about the latest acronym that will save the day, then claiming it is 10X better than YesterdaysAcronym.
The truth is that real software engineering has nothing to do with acronyms, operating systems, or choice of database. Rather, process, automation, and quality assurance have been the time-tested tactics for success in software. Whether you use Linux or Solaris or Windows NT makes no difference.
So seeing that Ruby on Rails was being heralded as 10X faster to develop with than Java (which of course, includes WebWork, Tapestry, Spring, Hibernate, and all the other frame I admire), I tend to get a bit annoyed. The truth is that RoR is probably great for certain things, but it can be written in Java and be just as productive. In fact, I will guarantee that someone could do what they do in Ruby with the same “two lines” that was so grossly misused and tossed around in that /. thread.
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Dustin — you must have misunderstood me. CRUD stands for “Create Read Update Delete”. Mapping CRUD to REST works great: Post Put Update Delete. I think RoR is a great idea for providing simple RESTful interfaces to the CRUD operations in a DB. It appears that it can do more than just 1-to-1 mappings on the UI to DB. In fact, it appears that the CRUD stuff is just one part of RoR. All things I admittedly didn’t know. But read my last comment and tell me if you don’t agree.
As for Dustin and others suddenly deciding to bash WebWork… don’t bother. WebWork and RoR are not even the same type of framework. WebWork has never tried to deal with persistence.
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Hello, I happen to have a lot of Rails development experience, so I might be able to explain something a little bit better here.
“So seeing that Ruby on Rails was being heralded as 10X faster to develop with than Java, I tend to get a bit annoyed.”
The fact of the matter is that Rails makes educated guesses at your configuration and layout, whereas with most Java frameworks, everything is controlled and configured by XML files. Explicit vs. implicit. This highly reduces the lines of code required, thus speeding up development since you don’t have to type as much. For an example, take a look at tadalist.com. It was written in Rails with less than 600 lines of code. What can you do with 600 lines of Java when you have to do things like this:
class HelloWorldApp {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(”Hello World!”);
}
}
Versus in the Ruby world:
puts “Hello World!”
This makes a huge difference.
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Lucas,
Certainly, but counting those lines of code is just silly. Like I wrote in my last comment, tools are incredibly important in having successful software projects. Ruby itself is a tool and by using that tool you get the ability to type ‘put “Hello World”!’. On the other hand, IntelliJ IDEA is a tool and I can type from the keyboard:
Ctrl-InsertHelloWorldpvsmsoutHello World!
By doing those key commands, I IDEA will create a class (Ctrl-Insert) named “HelloWorld”, then create a “public static void main” method, then write out a “System.out.println()” command, and finally add the string “Hello World!”.
My point is that both are productive. The language really doesn’t matter if the tools are there. In the case of Ruby, the language IS the tool, but that doesn’t take anything away from Java. I mean, I could bring up automated refactoring…
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Jesus fucking christ, at least try it before you knock it. Do you really think that a single introductory article, or a ten minute video demonstration, can justly describe every detail of a web framework? You are basing your “opinion” on a big reaking pile of assumptions.
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Tomas – I already apologized on several blogs about my entry. Read the comments and then tell me if you still disagree.
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Re: Hype: Ruby on Rails
I started writing a comment on Patrick’s post, and it become so large that I’m making a seperate blog post out of it: Lucas, while there are definitely advantages to providing sensible default behavior through an implicit approach, your example…
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 8:50 pm
I agree that with good tools you can achieve a lot. But I cannot agree with the statement that the language doesn’t matter. My personal opinion is that Ruby is so much easier to read and the language is so expressive. So even with a wonderful tools like IDEA while programming with Java you always will be overwhelmed in the static rigidness of the language. It always comes to the static vs. dynamic typing though.
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Patrick, lines of code does matter. If two programs do the exact same thing and one is written in less than half of the lines of code, it is a good guess that the smaller one is the better of the two. If a language consistently lets you write less code to do the same thing, that gives it an edge.
This is for a number of reasons, for example it cuts development time. As another example, it is a lot easier to debug. Find the error in the following Hello World,
class HelloWorldApp {
public statlc void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(”Hello World!”)
}
}
Versus in the Ruby world:
prlnt “Hello World!”
This is a microcosm for bigger problems. When the program gets to be thousands of lines long, why should you have to drudge through more than twice the code to understand the same procedure?
By the way, if you didn’t catch it, there were two errors in the Java version.
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 9:21 pm
I also very much agree that you should look into something like Rails a little more before you knock it. If you do not understand the difference between has_one, has_many, belongs_to, has_and_belongs_to_many, then you don’t even have the slightest understanding of what ActiveRecord provides as an object-relational model.
on Jan 21st, 2005 at 10:50 pm
Java is an incredibly verbose language compared to Python/Perl/Ruby. Surely you must concede this, Patrick? Whether or not IDE features can help manage this, well, that is definitely open to argument.
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 12:30 am
Dude, foo’ why u sucha hata?
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 1:28 am
For those interested in the “lines of code do matter argument”, I’d suggest you take a look at an actual empirical study at http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpprtTR.pdf . It’s pretty old, but I haven’t seen anything else that contradicts or supports its results.
The results: yes, lines of code do matter.
- java solutions tended to be 3x longer than scripted solutions (perl and python in this study)
- the rate of lines of code written per hour was the same between languages
- therefore, the java solutions tended to take 3x longer to write.
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 2:41 am
Steve,
You’ve got to be kidding. I can disprove those conclusions with one simple product: TogetherJ. That piece of crap editor for Java allows someone to spew out hundreds of lines of code in seconds. Clearly the rate of lines of code (key presses would be a better measurement, by the way) is not the same.
Come on people — are you really that dense? If I have a tool that spews out 100X more “code”, but I don’t have to deal with that code and I can modify it using my tool, can comparing those 100 lines to a single line of Ruby/PHP/Perl really be valid?
So typical of the /. crowd to get caught up in the dumbest of arguments. Then again, here I am re-affirming common sense, all because I let them drag me in in the first place.
I’ll just sum it up with this: people comparing lines of code as a measure of efficiency have never actually run a successful software business.
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 3:44 am
Actually, one of the greatest hackers of all time has run successful software business, attributing much of his success to fewer lines of code. Paul Graham wrote the first e-commerce application for the web and writes a lot about programming and programming languages.
http://paulgraham.com/avg.html
http://paulgraham.com/power.html
You seem to be simply responding to one of my arguments, setting aside all the rest. I agree that LOC isn’t the only nor the most important variable in the productivity equation, but it does make a large difference at the end of the day not having to sift through loads of extraneous information to get at what you are trying to do. You mention that with the right tools, the effort of creating Java code might be the same, but the effort of reading Java code is plainly more difficult.
In the end, choosing programming languages tends to be similar to choosing religions, and people are generally always protective of their religions. I guess that is the core of what is going on here, you knocked my religion, so I was trying to defend it. I guess I would have to say, don’t knock it until you’ve really tried it. For my part, I am looking into your web framework right now to see what is offered on the other side of the fence. I hope you give my religion a try too.
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 6:03 am
‘That application is so stupid’
Just as Patrick Lightbody recants his ill-guided charge, Geert Bevin — also involved with a Java web-framework, this time RIFE…
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 8:29 am
I am a beginning programmer. For me java is a better language then python or ruby declaring types and interfaces and exceptions and things like that makes a program more easy to read it is like a synopsis it takes a few lines more but makes it easier to read. A java compiler also finds typos that helps a lot .
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 10:51 am
Patrick, I’m sorry, but all I’ve seen are a lot of strongly-held opinions with no facts or even experience behind them. First, their was your post. Then there was your response to my post. I’ve used code generation myself, since I’ve been working with C#, even using the tool published by the TogetherJ folks … I still had lots of stuff in my code files I had to parse and debug and ponder at the end of the day. Remember, the development process includes much more than just typing.
Anyway.
How about if you do your own empirical study comparing languages, to invalidate the one I cited? Or write your own RoR application, see what it’s like? Until you have any sort of experience or data backing up your arguments, it does seem like just a lot of personal theory and emotion. The “it doesn’t scale” argument honestly seems like a pretty common excuse from the Java community and yet has no data behind it; can you come up with something better?
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 11:24 am
Steve,
I’m not going to waste my time with a study — I’ve already wasted enough with this thread
What I did do is point out a simple fact that I can produce more LOC in one language than another, so your assessment that people write LOC at the same pace isn’t correct.
Lucas,
Very well said. And please do give me some feedback. I’ve already apologized about knowing RoR several times. I’ve admitted I don’t know jack shit about it. This thread has turned in to a religious battle, and I’ll I’ve been saying this entire time is that exactly what Steve has been saying: the language is so small that it doesn’t matter. Process, tools, skill sets, automation, good marketing. Those are the things that make projects succeed. Not whether you are using Ruby or Perl.
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Hey Patrick. I’m Paradox from /., one of the people who bandied about that “two line” claim for Rails’ activerecord class.
I got a lot of angry emails over it from Java developes, along with some angry co-workers who (like me) make a living coding in Java and C++.
My response, even after reading your comment is, “Evolve or die.”
Rails is the next step in the way webapp frameworks are going to work. It lacks some features, there is no denying it. It doesn’t fully leverage the database (as some people on /. pointed out) and it lacks a few features that make webapp design easier in more complex scenarios…
But, it’s here now, today, and ready to do what you want. It’s evolving now, each release gives it new features. I suggest you jump, pick a direction, and hit the ground running, because Rails has a head start. Java fans are saying, “You could do the same thing in Java,” and I’d love to see it, but I suggest that people get started. Because very soon you’ll be in a position where Rails is so good that it’ll kill the category.
I can’t help but think lots of Java and Perl fans are pissed at Rails’ hype because they couldn’t/didn’t pull off the idea so well allready.
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 1:50 pm
“Rails is the next step in the way webapp frameworks are going to work … I can’t help but think lots of Java and Perl fans are pissed at Rails’ hype because they couldn’t/didn’t pull off the idea so well allready.”
All I see is a bunch of Rails fanatics that don’t accept that others see things differently and are stepped on their toes when you honestly say that you didn’t like it and prefer to do things differently. What, you say we have to write an entire application with it to be able to appreciate it? No thanks, after trying the tutorial, reading the docs, watching the videos and looking at some examples … I decided that I already wasted to much time on it and that I wasn’t interested in using it. If you can’t handle that and categorize ‘the rest of the world’ as ignorant, then you have a problem, not me.
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 2:28 pm
No Geert, I am sorry but calling people web applications stupid and trivial is not seeing things differently, it is stepping on toes. If you are talking about honesty, please be honest yourself. The Rails community is absolutely open to constructive criticism, but you provided none. You just said things suck. If you didn’t expect people to fight back, you are more ignorant than I thought. From your recent comments, the only thing I have seen you do is try to hurt others, not provide anything constructive, so don’t try to pull the holier than thou, can’t deal with criticism card.
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 2:37 pm
I’m bored with this debate. No more comments unless someone wants to agree that I’m right about the language (as opposed to framework) not being important (notice I’m not saying “Java 0wnz Ruby”).
Because… well… I AM right.
End of Thread.
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 3:54 pm
I actually happen to use both Rails and WebWork and I’m sorry for some of you guys but WW is clearly inferior to Rails in every aspect for a bunch of reasons:
1. Language DOES matter. Try to rebuild Rails in Java and after a few minutes you’ll forget about it. It’s just impossible to make it as elegant as Rails for various reasons (the first that comes to mind are the lack of mix-ins and blocks). In Rails I can use plain Ruby for every letter in MVC. With WW, I have at least to juggle between Java, JSP tags, OGNL and Velocity because Java is just not suited for all the jobs because of its verbosity. Not to mention various XML DTDs required for the configuration of various components. Great tools like IDEA may indeed help generate code but they won’t help you when it comes to read and maintain it : the only 100% guaranteed bug-free code is the one you don’t have to write.
2. Configuration. Although XW/WW configuration is very lightweight if you compare it to Struts, I still do repeat myself when I’m mapping the action addToCart to the class AddToCartAction. Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
3. Documentation. Rails is not even 1.0 and it’s way more carefully documented than WW. It looks like writing less code gives more time to document it.
Rails’ code base is also much tighter and thus very easy to dive into.
4. Full-Stack Framework. How many Java frameworks, microlanguages and XML dialects should I learn if I want develop an MVC web app, with ORM, with some sort of advanced way to organize and componentize views, a good testing infrastructure, multiple running environment support, … RoR comes with all that and so much more like some very nice View helpers.
5. Views. Please admit it, you hardcore Java guys just hate them. You probably think HTML is a toy markup language for pinky commie graphic designers and doesn’t deserve any respect.
That’ why the View tier of every single Java framework I’ve been using so far just badly sucked. Framework architect tend to always keep a safety distance with the View layer and thus just quickly write some wrapper for Velocity or a bunch of JSP tags and that’s about it. No wonder communicating between the model and the view is always a pain in the ass in one way or another (be it having the objects in the right scope or accessing the properties using some twisted microlanguage). All this makes Views barely readable and maintainable. RoR uses embedded Ruby, you benefit from all the power of a real language at your fingertips and a direct access to instance properties and even helper objects with no learning curve.
Although I think RoR is superior to all Java web framework I used so far, I really respect the WW guys for building this framework which is one of the coolest in Javaland (unfortunately still ruled by crapware like Struts) but there is absolutely NO WAY any Java framework can compete with RoR… just try to build some real life app with it to figure out yourself how much precious time you’ve been wasting until now.
Time to shutdown IDEA and launch TextMate, 2005 will definetly be the year of Ruby on Rails!
on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 8:14 pm
A slight diversion : )
When is the WebWork book expected to come out?
on Jan 23rd, 2005 at 3:28 am
Xavier, I replied to your mindless categorizations on my blog since the thread here is closed.
on Jan 23rd, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Xavier or anybody…how does Rails handle stored procedures? I’ve got some apps with pretty complex schemas and queries…the thought of hitting tables directly like in the RoR demo isn’t real pleasant…
I like Ruby and figure there’s probably a way, just haven’t seen it documented yet…
on Jan 23rd, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Denis,
Rails does not force you to use ActiveRecord, you may use the DB API of your choice. But even if you use ActiveRecord, you can easily bypass it (see the connection() method on ActiveRecord::Base) and execute any SQL statement.
on Jan 23rd, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Pat Lightbody from Webwork brings
Pat Lightbody from Webwork brings is opinion. See :
on Jan 24th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Where in the anger-denial-bargaining-depression-acceptance sequence are you?
WW might well be a fine framework – its biggest drawback is probably that it is a Java framework.
Tip: Learn Ruby.
on Jan 24th, 2005 at 6:42 am
First.
Did you ever wonder why web frameworks such as RoR focuses on and defines itself against Java, when it is obvious that the most likely alternatives are PHP, Perl or Python driven frameworks?
Take a look at the lead developer’s blog. Do you see any technical comparisons between his framework and Java based frameworks. Design discussion on ORMs, templating language, MVC design etc.?
No – you don’t. When you read about Java it is: Fear driven technology choices, Java zealots, evil bile etc.
Why is that? My guess is, it is because it creates an us and them exclusiveness, a sense of community, a common enemy … And that appeals to many people. In fact it attracts far people than an honest discussion of the complex trade offs between short term productivity, maintainability, scalability and the other issues that are important when choosing and designing languages and platforms.
Take a look at the introductionary video. Did you notice how changing the order of attributes in the MySQL database schema effects the layout of the web UI? Yep. There is an dependency between the layout of the web page and the order of the attributes in the database schema. Now is that good design? Is it maintainable?
It is certainly demoable.
Second.
The videos are good. There are litterally hundreds of decent web development frameworks out there. Naturally first impressions count. In fact – they dominate.
Third.
(A technical sidenote)
You cannot do what activerecords in RoR does in Java. But you can go the other way.
Java is a statically typed language and that means that the meta model has to be statically defined. A SQL database on the other hand allows for dynamic changes of its meta model (its schema).
In RoR the ORMs classes are redefined as the schema of the database evolves.
If you try to do that in Java you will work against the type system or have to rely on generated code. But you can go the other way and have the schema (the tables) evolve according to your Java classes.
(Appearantly some people don’t get that.)
on Jan 24th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
I have a problem with all you “object oriented” weenies. Stop your cat-fight about ruby vs. java. They are tools. Its you guys (gals?) that suck!!
You want to know why software “engineering” is not that at all? go look at a carpenter’s shop. Or a custom bike manufacturer.
If we asked you “object” developers to make us a bike you will promptly proceed to:
1. Dig the ore from the mountain.
2. Melt the ore and form metal
3. Beat the metal into 1/2″, 3/4″ pipe
4. Cut metal strips and beat them into “standard” size nails. (The “smart” ones amongst you would actually come up with a ‘die’ and hail it as the end of the world, but then you would go around and make more “die’s” than there would be the actual nails.. phee)
5. Create a Rim_factory()
6. Create a nut_and_bolt_factory()
9. Excavate oils and make paint.
10. Since you got so much time on your hands, you would go and create a bicycle manufacturing “framework” which would have all the above, PLUS it would be incompatible with every other weenie’s “framework”
P.S. And while you were at it, you would create your own screwdrivers and call it Jillips, just because you are such abhorrent TURDS! Who needs standard nuts and bolts you’ll create your own factory to create your own shit from scratch and then look people blankly in the face when they point out that this is totally redundant and non-standard. Enough with your lies and trickeries. Enough with your panty-wars.. you’re all the same. You are worse than lawyers and politicians. Actually, you are the group that should always be mentioned when lawyers and sleazy politicians are mentioned. You are leeches!
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL YOURSELF ENGINEERS! you pick up a new buzzword book everyday and pretend you’re some kind of guru’s . YOU SUCK, You are hacks and its about time you actually started USING the wheel instead of re-inventing it every-firkin time.
want examples? look at the hardware designers. YOU DILLWEEDS have squandred every single advance made on the hardware side, by filling it with more of the same: YOUR ABYSMAL INCOMPETENCIES. With the result that I have more computing power than the frikking Soviet Space control center in the 70’s — ON MY DESK – and yet it takes 5 minutes for the goddammned machine to load and show my that one lousy window!
and don’t invoke linux and beos and osx.. you’re all pricks. Incompetent pricks. And your buzzwords are not going to save you from us, your victims, your consumers, for much longer.
If you dick-heads tried to pull this kind of shit with public funds for, lets say, building a bridge? People would publicly flog you and ban you from returning to the city…(this is if they were kind. otherwise you should be imprisoned for the con-men that you are).
you feed upon the ignorance of the masses, and as soon as they figure out, you’ll be outta here.
You are nothing but Con-men.. with all your confusing talk of objects and acronyms and new names for the same old shit every two years….wall to wall books in firkin Borders and not a single elegant re-usable product to show for it..
its trickery I say… Trickery!
J’Accuse!!
—-sigsig—-
1101111011001010111110111010110111011110101011011011111011101111111110101101111011111010110111101111101011011110
on Jan 24th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Heehee…CowardAtLarge is an amusing fellow. However, the bridge analogy will be relevant when the strength of materials starts doubling every eighteen months, and people decide they want to replace their bridges with prettier ones every 3 years or so.
on Jan 24th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
I am glad you find painful truth “amusing”. The fact is that materials ARE advancing that fast, but you don’t see people tearing down the golden gate bridge because steel 100 times stronger has been invented. As a matter of fact, if someone suggested tearing down a perfectly working bridge and building a new bridge because a new type of cable (or even Paint (ie GUI)) had been invented, they would be promptly escorted to the loonie bin.
But this is quite normal in software engineering et. This idiocy and this type of crime can only be perpetrated by the likes of those who have the audacity to take a college level course, pick up a “learn java in 21 days” and 21 days later, declare themselves Software “Engineers” no less. This is because these people have implicitly taken part in a conspiracy of silence amongst their own ilk in keeping their customers in the dark. Not only individuals but mega corps themselves are guilty of the same crime.
what is needed is stringent licencing mechanisms (a la IEEE) so not every tom, dick and harriet can start prclaiming their “engineership” after reading “Java for dummies”. You wouldn’t dare let a charlatan build your house or your 30 floor condo building. But people exactly such as these walk around the corporate hallways.. pretending to be what they are not and building the equivalent of 30 story buildings but only in software.
Yes I was trying to be facetious, but if you look under the surface.. there is a hint of a hideous secret that all of us “software engineers” always push under the carpet and never acknowledge.
shut up kids!!! SHUT UPPPP!!!
—-sigsig—-
1101111011001010111110111010110111011110101011011011111011101111111110101101111011111010110111101111101011011110
on Jan 24th, 2005 at 11:48 pm
RE: Hype: Ruby on Rails
Patrick thinks that Ruby on Rails is all hype .
Now maybe I’m just a bit biased since my framework isn’t getting all the slashdotters oohing and awwing over it, but I think Ruby on Rails is way
over hyped. The tutorial here is great and gave me
on Jan 25th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Frankly, I fail to see what advantage Action Pack (the MVC controller of Rails) has over WebWork2 from a feature standpoint. WebWork had interceptors before Rails had filters plus interceptors are more flexible. I18n is easy in WW2, inexistant in Rails. The WW UI tags are the equivalent of view helpers in Action Pack. XWork (the command framework of WW) can be reused in non web environments, in Rails it is not possible to easily separate the action handling framework.
I like Ruby syntax, though…
What about ActiveRecord vs Hibernate? Active Record has a subset of Hibernate features. Sure, Ruby allows you to write less code since you are not constrained by static typing, but it is not as mature and flexible as Hibernate.
Just my 2 cents…
on Jan 26th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
These ROR newbies are just freakin hilarious~!
Matz is all about making Ruby consistent, follow the principles of “least surprise”, and accessible to “morals”, but ROR newbies are in a new class… (half the people using ROR probably don’t even know who Matz is)
You guys are giving Ruby and ROR a bad name…
btw, MVC isn’t new and ROR’s implementation of MVC isn’t new either.
You ROR newbies really need to SHUT UP !!
on Jan 27th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
“RoR is simply a RESTful CRUD framework” sounds like very high praise to my uninformed hears
on Mar 8th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Frameworks are leading indicators for programming languages
Patrick has a dig at Rails. Hype deflation is a good thing (and RoR is over-hyped), but one thing he said in comments bothered me – that programming languages don’t matter, at least not with respect to frameworks and tools. First of all, I’m tired of s…
on Mar 11th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Re: publicizing OpenSymphony better
It might be interesting to record a short intro demo like RoR did. I’d recommend having a voice over though, as the silent RoR screencast is painful, imo.
on Mar 23rd, 2005 at 4:00 pm
I was never bashing WebWorks, I realize they are completely different frameworks. sorry if I offended. As for the crud comment (i know what it stands for), that was exactly it, you were just comparing one part of RoR. I think you are doing great, keep up the good work, just dont knock other projects unless you have really used them…
on Jan 13th, 2006 at 2:23 am
haha mr.lightbody is so right. Everything he has said makes so much sense. You wannabe cult fans are waisting his time arguing about useless things. Rather then compare ruby on rails to java or anything of that sort….go do something useful with ror. Java is much much more matured, java and ruby on rails being compared is ridiculous! Java has a huge community and software on the market. Like Mr.Lightbody said, how can u compare lines of code when most java development is done in IDE’s, some of the best development environments out their! Instead of arguing like a bunch of angry housewives plz try and prove how Ror is the new king of the web??!?! All the time u guys waisted here arguing how its better and not actually doing nething with it might show why ur jobs are coming here to india! haha