Anyone been following the .NET version of RoR? http://www.theserverside.net/news/thread.tss?thread_id=34964 I''ve been following it a bit, haven''t loaded it though to see what all it can and cannot do.
* Chad Lung (chad.lung-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) [050705 10:30]:> Anyone been following the .NET version of RoR? > > http://www.theserverside.net/news/thread.tss?thread_id=34964 > > I''ve been following it a bit, haven''t loaded it though to see what all > it can and cannot do.Haven''t followed it, but after running through their tutorial it looks pretty miserable to use to me -- XML configuration junk, verbose-ass language, lots of unintuitive syntax, way too much code. I can sort of see how this was inspired by Rails, but it''s definitely a distant cousin. ;-) I guess what I''m thinking is that if you''re stuck in the .NET world it''s probably fine to try to be inspired by Rails and implement something to take the edge off the pain. Watch the long movie on the rubyonrails site though. There are solid reasons Rails was written in Ruby (and why the Rails Way hasn''t carried over to any of the porting attempts). Given complete choice there''s no way I''d use .NET-anything, and I''d just pick Rails and run with it. Otherwise, I just find myself saying "poor bastards." Rick -- http://www.rickbradley.com MUPRN: 365 | classes. How about random email haiku | the inverse: Those who can''t teach | do Peter Prof. Dr.
On 7/5/05, Rick Bradley <rick-xSCPAUIMY+WN9aS15agKxg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> * Chad Lung (chad.lung-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) [050705 10:30]: > > Anyone been following the .NET version of RoR? > > > > http://www.theserverside.net/news/thread.tss?thread_id=34964 > > > > I''ve been following it a bit, haven''t loaded it though to see what all > > it can and cannot do. > > Haven''t followed it, but after running through their tutorial it looks > pretty miserable to use to me -- XML configuration junk, verbose-ass > language, lots of unintuitive syntax, way too much code. I can sort of > see how this was inspired by Rails, but it''s definitely a distant > cousin. ;-) > > I guess what I''m thinking is that if you''re stuck in the .NET world it''s > probably fine to try to be inspired by Rails and implement something to > take the edge off the pain. Watch the long movie on the rubyonrails > site though. There are solid reasons Rails was written in Ruby (and why > the Rails Way hasn''t carried over to any of the porting attempts). > Given complete choice there''s no way I''d use .NET-anything, and I''d just > pick Rails and run with it. Otherwise, I just find myself saying "poor > bastards."As one of those "poor bastards," I can definitely see where something like this would be useful. There are some new features of ASP.Net 2.0 that would make this stuff much easier. If I was still in the AF and stuck using .Net, I''d be all over it. I was even pretty excited for ASP.Net 2.0 and playing with the Beta 1 bits. But somewhere between Beta 1 and 2, I got hired (as an ASP.Net dev too) and started working with an understanding boss, discovered RoR, and I didn''t even notice when Beta 2 dropped. Anyhow, this reinforces why it''s important to stress RUBY on Rails. Ruby is where the magic happens. -- rick http://techno-weenie.net
Funny, I''ve just posted something about this... http://dema.ruby.com.br/articles/2005/07/05/do-yourself-a-favor-get-a-good-framework -- http://dema.ruby.com.br - Rails from a .NET perspective Rick Olson wrote:> On 7/5/05, Rick Bradley <rick-xSCPAUIMY+WN9aS15agKxg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >>* Chad Lung (chad.lung-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) [050705 10:30]: >> >>>Anyone been following the .NET version of RoR? >>> >>>http://www.theserverside.net/news/thread.tss?thread_id=34964 >>> >>>I''ve been following it a bit, haven''t loaded it though to see what all >>>it can and cannot do. >> >>Haven''t followed it, but after running through their tutorial it looks >>pretty miserable to use to me -- XML configuration junk, verbose-ass >>language, lots of unintuitive syntax, way too much code. I can sort of >>see how this was inspired by Rails, but it''s definitely a distant >>cousin. ;-) >> >>I guess what I''m thinking is that if you''re stuck in the .NET world it''s >>probably fine to try to be inspired by Rails and implement something to >>take the edge off the pain. Watch the long movie on the rubyonrails >>site though. There are solid reasons Rails was written in Ruby (and why >>the Rails Way hasn''t carried over to any of the porting attempts). >>Given complete choice there''s no way I''d use .NET-anything, and I''d just >>pick Rails and run with it. Otherwise, I just find myself saying "poor >>bastards." > > > As one of those "poor bastards," I can definitely see where something > like this would be useful. There are some new features of ASP.Net 2.0 > that would make this stuff much easier. If I was still in the AF and > stuck using .Net, I''d be all over it. I was even pretty excited for > ASP.Net 2.0 and playing with the Beta 1 bits. But somewhere between > Beta 1 and 2, I got hired (as an ASP.Net dev too) and started working > with an understanding boss, discovered RoR, and I didn''t even notice > when Beta 2 dropped. > > Anyhow, this reinforces why it''s important to stress RUBY on Rails. > Ruby is where the magic happens. > >
Yes the XML config is a bit much. I am no fan of off loading config from code to xml in .NET then claming its easier... I like the simplicity of the .yml in RoR. .NET has some good things, as does PHP, but RoR is so cutting edge its hard to ignore. I have a project I am doing with Rails and I am curious to see how long it will take and how difficult it will be as to compared to tools I am more familiar with (ie: PHP, .NET) On 7/5/05, Rick Bradley <rick-xSCPAUIMY+WN9aS15agKxg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> * Chad Lung (chad.lung-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) [050705 10:30]: > > Anyone been following the .NET version of RoR? > > > > http://www.theserverside.net/news/thread.tss?thread_id=34964 > > > > I''ve been following it a bit, haven''t loaded it though to see what all > > it can and cannot do. > > Haven''t followed it, but after running through their tutorial it looks > pretty miserable to use to me -- XML configuration junk, verbose-ass > language, lots of unintuitive syntax, way too much code. I can sort of > see how this was inspired by Rails, but it''s definitely a distant > cousin. ;-) > > I guess what I''m thinking is that if you''re stuck in the .NET world it''s > probably fine to try to be inspired by Rails and implement something to > take the edge off the pain. Watch the long movie on the rubyonrails > site though. There are solid reasons Rails was written in Ruby (and why > the Rails Way hasn''t carried over to any of the porting attempts). > Given complete choice there''s no way I''d use .NET-anything, and I''d just > pick Rails and run with it. Otherwise, I just find myself saying "poor > bastards." > > Rick > -- > http://www.rickbradley.com MUPRN: 365 > | classes. How about > random email haiku | the inverse: Those who can''t teach > | do Peter Prof. Dr. >
I''ve thought about implementing what Rails does in Java but also came to the conclusion that would be a futile attempt without the support of a dynamic language such as Ruby. On 7/5/05, Rick Olson <technoweenie-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 7/5/05, Rick Bradley <rick-xSCPAUIMY+WN9aS15agKxg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > * Chad Lung (chad.lung-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) [050705 10:30]: > > > Anyone been following the .NET version of RoR? > > > > > > http://www.theserverside.net/news/thread.tss?thread_id=34964 > > > > > > I''ve been following it a bit, haven''t loaded it though to see what all > > > it can and cannot do. > > > > Haven''t followed it, but after running through their tutorial it looks > > pretty miserable to use to me -- XML configuration junk, verbose-ass > > language, lots of unintuitive syntax, way too much code. I can sort of > > see how this was inspired by Rails, but it''s definitely a distant > > cousin. ;-) > > > > I guess what I''m thinking is that if you''re stuck in the .NET world it''s > > probably fine to try to be inspired by Rails and implement something to > > take the edge off the pain. Watch the long movie on the rubyonrails > > site though. There are solid reasons Rails was written in Ruby (and why > > the Rails Way hasn''t carried over to any of the porting attempts). > > Given complete choice there''s no way I''d use .NET-anything, and I''d just > > pick Rails and run with it. Otherwise, I just find myself saying "poor > > bastards." > > As one of those "poor bastards," I can definitely see where something > like this would be useful. There are some new features of ASP.Net 2.0 > that would make this stuff much easier. If I was still in the AF and > stuck using .Net, I''d be all over it. I was even pretty excited for > ASP.Net 2.0 and playing with the Beta 1 bits. But somewhere between > Beta 1 and 2, I got hired (as an ASP.Net dev too) and started working > with an understanding boss, discovered RoR, and I didn''t even notice > when Beta 2 dropped. > > Anyhow, this reinforces why it''s important to stress RUBY on Rails. > Ruby is where the magic happens. > > > -- > rick > http://techno-weenie.net > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Rick Olson wrote: ...> Anyhow, this reinforces why it''s important to stress RUBY on Rails. > Ruby is where the magic happens.That cannot be repeated enough. Looking at the Castle MonoRail site, I''m left wondering why they didn''t use JScript.net/janet rather than C#. A dynamically-typed (though the .net version does allow for typing), prototype-based language would have given them a running start. (The brief mention of Rook was amusing. The description seems a bit of an oxymoron.) James