Rails - Jul 2005 - Rails VS ASP 2.0 on IIS and Windows 2003 server

I''m working in a complex web app that could have 1000+ users within the
next
year. It must be run on Windows 2003. Current db is SqlServer 2000. Company 
is deciding between Rails and ASP 2.0. I''d like to get some feedback on
which would be the best to develop in. ( I prefer Rails :)

1. Will Rails be stable in that environment? Will it work with IIS?

2. Is it better for complex webapps than ASP 2.0? Does it provide faster 
time to market? Easier to maintain, etc.

3. What other factors should be considered in making such a far -reaching 
decision?

Thanks in advance for you comments, and insites.

-Larry


_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

1.  I believe Rails is reasonably stable now in IIS, and will become
more so.  The big issues at the moment are the complexity of
deploying
>1 Rails app to a single IIS box, and performance.  Solutions for both
of these are being developed at the moment.

2.  In my experience, development in Rails is much faster than in ASP
2.  Several reasons:
- once you''ve got your model in place, ActiveRecord makes a lot of
complex database manipulation trivial
- less lines of code = less bugs
- less lines of code = less effort required for maintenance tasks
- Ruby is a much more powerful language than VBScript or JScript. 
Many times, it''s easier to code your ASP stuff in e.g. VB because of
the lack of power in VBScript, but then you''re adding another layer of
complexity to your app
- the MVC pattern is fundamental to Rails, and is a very good fit for
a large subset of Web apps.  To implement MVC in ASP is at best a
challenge

3.  Need for an agile environment is probably the biggest factor that
springs to mind.  Do you expect to have your requirements known and
documented up front and largely fixed, or do you expect the
requirements to be developed at the same time as your code?  If the
latter, Rails definitely has a big edge over ASP

Regards

Dave M.

On 7/27/05, Larry Kelly <ldk2005-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> I''m working in a complex web app that could have 1000+ users
within the next
> year.  It must be run on Windows 2003. Current db is SqlServer 2000. 
> Company is deciding between Rails and ASP 2.0.  I''d like to get
some
> feedback on which would be the best to develop in.  ( I prefer Rails  :)
>  
>  1.  Will Rails be stable in that environment? Will it work with IIS?
>  
>  2.  Is it better for complex webapps than ASP 2.0?  Does it provide faster
> time to market? Easier to maintain, etc.
>  
>  3.  What other factors should be considered in making such a far -reaching
> decision?
>  
>   Thanks in advance for you comments, and insites.
>  
>  -Larry
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> 
> 
>

Dave - I think the original poster was referring to ASP.NET 2.0 rather
than vanilla ASP, so point 2 down there is probably moot (though
accurate for vanilla ASP).

To weigh in, personally I feel that the major advantages for ASP.NET
2.0 lie in its ease of deployment (especially with IIS - Rails is a
hassle to deploy there) and the IDE.  Rails wins hands down on
development time, though there are some web controls that are
available by default in ASP.NET 2.0 that AFAIK rails has no equivalent
for (as of yet).  Depends on your needs.

In terms of ease of maintenance - Rails will probably have
simpler/shorter code, so that''s a plus, though there are fewer Rails
developers out there (vs .NET developers), so it again depends on your
needs and circumstances.

Each has its pros and cons - ASP.NET 2.0 is a nice environment, though
not as clean as Rails.  It also plays nicer with IIS - if you''re going
to do a lot up re-deploying, it might be worth investigating Rails/IIS
yourself to get a better idea of the pitfalls.  If it''s going to be
distributed or highly transactional, .NET/EnterpriseServices has
better built-in support for distributed transactions and queueing and
the like, though I''m sure something similar could be done with Rails
and DRb (probably not out of the box though).

There are just too many factors to determine a clear-cut winner - your
best bet is to protoype some of your application in both and determine
the pros and cons from there.

Hope that helps! (though it probably hasn''t :)

-DF

On 7/27/05, David Mitchell
<monch1962-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 1.  I believe Rails is reasonably stable now in IIS, and will become
> more so.  The big issues at the moment are the complexity of deploying
> >1 Rails app to a single IIS box, and performance.  Solutions for both
> of these are being developed at the moment.
> 
> 2.  In my experience, development in Rails is much faster than in ASP
> 2.  Several reasons:
> - once you''ve got your model in place, ActiveRecord makes a lot of
> complex database manipulation trivial
> - less lines of code = less bugs
> - less lines of code = less effort required for maintenance tasks
> - Ruby is a much more powerful language than VBScript or JScript.
> Many times, it''s easier to code your ASP stuff in e.g. VB because
of
> the lack of power in VBScript, but then you''re adding another
layer of
> complexity to your app
> - the MVC pattern is fundamental to Rails, and is a very good fit for
> a large subset of Web apps.  To implement MVC in ASP is at best a
> challenge
> 
> 3.  Need for an agile environment is probably the biggest factor that
> springs to mind.  Do you expect to have your requirements known and
> documented up front and largely fixed, or do you expect the
> requirements to be developed at the same time as your code?  If the
> latter, Rails definitely has a big edge over ASP
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dave M.
> 
> On 7/27/05, Larry Kelly
<ldk2005-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > I''m working in a complex web app that could have 1000+ users
within the next
> > year.  It must be run on Windows 2003. Current db is SqlServer 2000.
> > Company is deciding between Rails and ASP 2.0.  I''d like to
get some
> > feedback on which would be the best to develop in.  ( I prefer Rails 
:)
> >
> >  1.  Will Rails be stable in that environment? Will it work with IIS?
> >
> >  2.  Is it better for complex webapps than ASP 2.0?  Does it provide
faster
> > time to market? Easier to maintain, etc.
> >
> >  3.  What other factors should be considered in making such a far
-reaching
> > decision?
> >
> >   Thanks in advance for you comments, and insites.
> >
> >  -Larry
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails mailing list
> > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

The level of control you have over your db is also a major factor.
Make sure your db structure works well with Rails or you will
be missing all the nice things it does for you.  Seems like a
proof of concept not a bad idea.

(I''m from the java world so take this with a big grain of salt)

On 7/26/05, David Felstead
<david.felstead-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Dave - I think the original poster was referring to ASP.NET 2.0 rather
> than vanilla ASP, so point 2 down there is probably moot (though
> accurate for vanilla ASP).
> 
> To weigh in, personally I feel that the major advantages for ASP.NET
> 2.0 lie in its ease of deployment (especially with IIS - Rails is a
> hassle to deploy there) and the IDE.  Rails wins hands down on
> development time, though there are some web controls that are
> available by default in ASP.NET 2.0 that AFAIK rails has no equivalent
> for (as of yet).  Depends on your needs.
> 
> In terms of ease of maintenance - Rails will probably have
> simpler/shorter code, so that''s a plus, though there are fewer
Rails
> developers out there (vs .NET developers), so it again depends on your
> needs and circumstances.
> 
> Each has its pros and cons - ASP.NET 2.0 is a nice environment, though
> not as clean as Rails.  It also plays nicer with IIS - if you''re
going
> to do a lot up re-deploying, it might be worth investigating Rails/IIS
> yourself to get a better idea of the pitfalls.  If it''s going to
be
> distributed or highly transactional, .NET/EnterpriseServices has
> better built-in support for distributed transactions and queueing and
> the like, though I''m sure something similar could be done with
Rails
> and DRb (probably not out of the box though).
> 
> There are just too many factors to determine a clear-cut winner - your
> best bet is to protoype some of your application in both and determine
> the pros and cons from there.
> 
> Hope that helps! (though it probably hasn''t :)
> 
> -DF
> 
> On 7/27/05, David Mitchell
<monch1962-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > 1.  I believe Rails is reasonably stable now in IIS, and will become
> > more so.  The big issues at the moment are the complexity of deploying
> > >1 Rails app to a single IIS box, and performance.  Solutions for
both
> > of these are being developed at the moment.
> >
> > 2.  In my experience, development in Rails is much faster than in ASP
> > 2.  Several reasons:
> > - once you''ve got your model in place, ActiveRecord makes a
lot of
> > complex database manipulation trivial
> > - less lines of code = less bugs
> > - less lines of code = less effort required for maintenance tasks
> > - Ruby is a much more powerful language than VBScript or JScript.
> > Many times, it''s easier to code your ASP stuff in e.g. VB
because of
> > the lack of power in VBScript, but then you''re adding another
layer of
> > complexity to your app
> > - the MVC pattern is fundamental to Rails, and is a very good fit for
> > a large subset of Web apps.  To implement MVC in ASP is at best a
> > challenge
> >
> > 3.  Need for an agile environment is probably the biggest factor that
> > springs to mind.  Do you expect to have your requirements known and
> > documented up front and largely fixed, or do you expect the
> > requirements to be developed at the same time as your code?  If the
> > latter, Rails definitely has a big edge over ASP
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Dave M.
> >
> > On 7/27/05, Larry Kelly
<ldk2005-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > I''m working in a complex web app that could have 1000+
users within the next
> > > year.  It must be run on Windows 2003. Current db is SqlServer
2000.
> > > Company is deciding between Rails and ASP 2.0.  I''d like
to get some
> > > feedback on which would be the best to develop in.  ( I prefer
Rails  :)
> > >
> > >  1.  Will Rails be stable in that environment? Will it work with
IIS?
> > >
> > >  2.  Is it better for complex webapps than ASP 2.0?  Does it
provide faster
> > > time to market? Easier to maintain, etc.
> > >
> > >  3.  What other factors should be considered in making such a far
-reaching
> > > decision?
> > >
> > >   Thanks in advance for you comments, and insites.
> > >
> > >  -Larry
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails mailing list
> > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails mailing list
> > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

Ah, yep.  Maybe I shouldn''t reply to a message about ASP.NET at the
same time I''m debugging ASP code - wires got crossed in my brain for a
moment...

Regards

Dave M.

On 7/27/05, David Felstead
<david.felstead-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Dave - I think the original poster was referring to ASP.NET 2.0 rather
> than vanilla ASP, so point 2 down there is probably moot (though
> accurate for vanilla ASP).

Here is my limited experience:

IIS + fcgi + rails is slower than Apache + fcgi + rails. There was a
long period of time where I couldn''t even get IIS + rails to work
properly (on win 2000), and eventually I gave up that path. I conviced
my uppers to go with an apache installation on another box, and now we
are running ASP.NET on a 2003 box, Apache on another box, and sql
server on a third box.

If you do not have much control over the db structure, you will have
some headaches with rails and sql server. Just today I encountered a
problem where set_table_name in my model would not apply to my unit
tests. Im hoping that either 1) I messed up, or 2) it will be fixed in
the near future, as I cannot continue my test driven development
without this functionality.

This has been the gripe of most java developers, as the "convention
over configuration" ideology conflicts with trying to adopt rails into
an existing (and different) database structure.

Jin

On 7/26/05, David Mitchell
<monch1962-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Ah, yep.  Maybe I shouldn''t reply to a message about ASP.NET at
the
> same time I''m debugging ASP code - wires got crossed in my brain
for a
> moment...
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dave M.
> 
> On 7/27/05, David Felstead
<david.felstead-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > Dave - I think the original poster was referring to ASP.NET 2.0 rather
> > than vanilla ASP, so point 2 down there is probably moot (though
> > accurate for vanilla ASP).
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

I''ve been doing asp.net since it came out, but only dabbled in both
Rails and asp.net 2.0, so the "grain of salt rule" applies.

On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:32 -0700, Larry Kelly wrote:
> I''m working in a complex web app that could have 1000+ users
within
> the next year.  It must be run on Windows 2003. Current db is
> SqlServer 2000.  Company is deciding between Rails and ASP 2.0. 
I''d
> like to get some feedback on which would be the best to develop in.
> ( I prefer Rails  :)
> 
> 1.  Will Rails be stable in that environment? Will it work with IIS?
Is IIS an absolute requirement? Apache with the new SCGI stuff Zed is
working on might be (I hope) very stable. Right now asp2 is still beta
as well.
> 
> 2.  Is it better for complex webapps than ASP 2.0?  Does it provide
> faster time to market? Easier to maintain, etc.
Rails encourages a clean and simple and design. You may end up with a
more simple implementation in the end. Some have complained that Rails
hinders big, complex apps. I feel big, complex apps hinder everyone
involved.

Faster to market? Very likely. Easier to maintain? That depends on the
final level of complexity, but the need to re-compile the asp2 app makes
redeployment a bit more tedious.
> 
> 3.  What other factors should be considered in making such a far
> -reaching decision?
Developer enthusiasm goes a _long_ way. Which one would you get up early
to work with every day? This may be a good time to make a quick app in
each. Spend one day each, working a list of simple (but pertaining to
your app) features, and see how far you get, how comfortable it is, and
how much fun it is. It''s OK to have fun at work, I swear. :)
> 
>  Thanks in advance for you comments, and insites.
An alternative that may bridge the gap for you is
http://www.castleproject.org/, but support for asp.net 2.0 is not nailed
down yet.
> 
> -Larry
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

On 7/26/05, Kevin Williams <kevin-P4szbAuRZ8UqDJ6do+/SaQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> I''ve been doing asp.net <http://asp.net> since it came out,
but only
> dabbled in both
> Rails and asp.net <http://asp.net> 2.0, so the "grain of salt
rule"
> applies.
> 
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 16:32 -0700, Larry Kelly wrote:
> > I''m working in a complex web app that could have 1000+ users
within
> > the next year. It must be run on Windows 2003. Current db is
> > SqlServer 2000. Company is deciding between Rails and ASP 2.0.
I''d
> > like to get some feedback on which would be the best to develop in.
> > ( I prefer Rails :)
> >
> > 1. Will Rails be stable in that environment? Will it work with IIS?
> 
> Is IIS an absolute requirement? Apache with the new SCGI stuff Zed is
> working on might be (I hope) very stable. Right now asp2 is still beta
> as well.


   - no. But, isn''t it better than Apache on Windows? Our IT dept
doesn''t
   have any experience/inclination to support Linux.
    
>
> > 2. Is it better for complex webapps than ASP 2.0? Does it provide
> > faster time to market? Easier to maintain, etc.
> <snip..>
> 
> Faster to market? Very likely. Easier to maintain? That depends on the
> final level of complexity, but the need to re-compile the asp2 app makes
> redeployment a bit more tedious.

   - Are you saying moving app to different machine will require a 
   re-compile?
    
>
> Spend one day each, working a list of simple (but pertaining to
> your app) features, and see how far you get, how comfortable it is, and
> how much fun it is. It''s OK to have fun at work, I swear. :)

   - Sounds like a good idea. Now, if I can find where I put that 
   ''fun-o-meter'' . . . 

> An alternative that may bridge the gap for you is
> http://www.castleproject.org/, but support for asp.net
<http://asp.net>
> 2.0 is not nailed
> down yet.

   - Not sure what I''m seeing. This has NOTHING to do with Ruby,
correct?
   Just Rails on .NET 

-Larry


_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

On 7/26/05, David Mitchell
<monch1962-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> 1. I believe Rails is reasonably stable now in IIS, and will become
> more so. The big issues at the moment are the complexity of deploying
> >1 Rails app to a single IIS box, and performance. Solutions for both
> of these are being developed at the moment.

   - Would those solutions be available in 3 - 4 months? I can get by 
   with webrick for development.
    
3. Need for an agile environment is probably the biggest factor that
> springs to mind. Do you expect to have your requirements known and
> documented up front and largely fixed, or do you expect the
> requirements to be developed at the same time as your code? If the
> latter, Rails definitely has a big edge over ASP

   - 80% of the requirements are known at this time, and are in 
   production as a MS-ACCESS/ SQL Server app. 
    
-Larry


_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

Larry Kelly wrote:
>      > I''m working in a complex web app that could have 1000+
users within
>      > the next year.  It must be run on Windows 2003. Current db is
>      > SqlServer 2000.  Company is deciding between Rails and ASP 2.0. 
I''d
>      > like to get some feedback on which would be the best to develop
in.
>      > ( I prefer Rails  :)
>      >
>      > 1.  Will Rails be stable in that environment? Will it work with
IIS?
> 
>     Is IIS an absolute requirement? Apache with the new SCGI stuff Zed is
>     working on might be (I hope) very stable. Right now asp2 is still beta
>     as well.
> 
> 
>     *  no. But, isn''t it better than Apache on Windows?  Our IT
dept
>       doesn''t have any experience/inclination to support Linux.
You said Windows 2003 was the requirement and asked if it would work 
with IIS. It might work in IIS, but I doubt it''s stable yet (anyone 
please correct me on this). You''ll have better luck with Rails in
Apache
than IIS. Lighttpd on Cygwin might even be a better choice, but i''ve 
never tried it. Apache should run well on Windows 2003. If the IT dept. 
won''t support Apache or set up a Linux box, I wouldn''t expect
Rails to
be production-ready on Windows until someone writes a very stable ISAPI 
filter for SCGI.
>     Faster to market? Very likely. Easier to maintain? That depends on the
>     final level of complexity, but the need to re-compile the asp2 app
>     makes
>     redeployment a bit more tedious.
> 
>     * Are you saying moving app to different machine will require a
>       re-compile?
No, with maintenence I was thinking bug-fixing and re-deployments. 
Actually, asp2 can recompile your whole app, so this is kind of a moot 
point on my part.
>     An alternative that may bridge the gap for you is
>     http://www.castleproject.org/, but support for asp.net
>     <http://asp.net> 2.0 is not nailed
>     down yet.
> 
>     * Not sure what I''m seeing.  This has NOTHING to do with Ruby,
>       correct? Just Rails on .NET
If you like Rails but have to do .Net, then Castle should be right up 
your alley. It''s got MVC with Controllers, Helpers, and Views, AJAX, 
routes, ActiveRecord, IoC tools, AOP tools - even a YAML implementation 
in the works. There''s also an erb-like view implementation in the
works,
so that *.rhtml files will be right at home (hopefully). It''s a Rails 
lover''s home away from home.

Cheers,

Kevin

My 2 cents....

Being primarily a developer on Windows systems I can say I''ve had very
little trouble with Apache 2.0 running on Windows Servers.  However,
I''ve found things like PHP (not the CGI version - the real deal setup)
much easier to get up and running than Rails on such Windows/Apache
systems. Hopefully though it will become easier as Rails progresses -
obviously PHP has been out a while and Windows installation info is
everywhere. I looked at the hacks to get Rails working on IIS, but
there was no way in my mind that these seemed stable for a production
environment.  Your best bet really is Apache on Windows right now to
run Rails.

That said, ASP.NET 2.0 has come a long way - but I feel its only
*maybe* caught up to the current technologies out there, its certainly
not leap frogging anything at this point, but it is a pretty good
framework- controls like the datagrid with its baked in goodies are
definately timesavers.  The AJAX ease of use in Rails is way, way
better/easier than in ASP.NET.  The built-in AJAX support in ASP.NET
2.0 is too tedious to get a simple test running compared to Rails. 
Don''t get me wrong, AJAX in ASP.NET 2.0 works well, but it could have
been easier.  Keep in mind though ASP.NET 2.0 won''t be officially
released until Nov.  Not sure either when Rails 1.0 will become
reality though either.  Sometimes (rarely) the client is concerned
about deploying an app that is pre verison 1.0 stage - usually they
don''t care though, but there are a few that do.

In the end you need to determine the answer thats best.  Frankly if I
had to deploy a large app and it had to be running Windows 2003
Server, IIS, and SQL Server theres not a doubt in my mind I''d stick
with ASP.NET.  Does this mean Rails isn''t the way to go for other
types of projects?  Not at all, I''d have no problems going with Rails
if the requirements were Windows Server, Apache 2.0, and either MySQL,
PostgreSQL, etc.  I am no fan of ASP.NET prior to the 2.0 release, but
I will give credit where credit is due - ASP.NET 2.0 is a good
framework - its what should have been released originally, now its
just trying to catch up.  Up until Beta 2 most of Microsoft''s web
controls didn''t even work in Firefox!  Just insane really.  Nowdays
you gotta support more than just IE, had Microsoft kept going down the
road of only supporting IE I would have dropped ASP.NET altogether and
moved to other frameworks/tools.

Whats more "fun" to work in?  Rails - easily wins that.  Given a firm
requirement of Windows 2003 Server/IIS/SQL Server whats going to be a
stable easy to deploy/setup platform based on today''s assesment
between ASP.NET 2.0 and Rails?  Sorry, gotta go with ASP.NET 2.0 here.
 Swtich that requirement to Windows 2003 Server/Apache
2.0/MySQL/PostgreSQL and I''d probably push for Rails.

In the long run, I think technologies like Rails will continue to leap
frog the competition and will gain more and more traction.  Projects
like DJango, PHP Cake, etc. are all cutting edge.  ASP.NET is a good
technology, but its not keeping up in my mind with ease of use, latest
and greatest Javascript effects, etc.  Rails wins hands down each
time.  The Rails community is alive, its been a long time since I''ve
felt an ASP.NET community have some "buzz" about it.

Good luck on the project!

Chad

If the original poster really meant ASP.NET <http://ASP.NET> 2.0, i.e. the
beta version of the framework, then I would say don''t build a busy or 
critical site on it until it''s been up and stabilized and probably
patched
at least once.

I wouldn''t trust a beta framework from MS for anything critical.


Steve

On 7/26/05, David Felstead
<david.felstead-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> Dave - I think the original poster was referring to
ASP.NET<http://ASP.NET>
> 2.0 rather
> than vanilla ASP, so point 2 down there is probably moot (though
> accurate for vanilla ASP).
> 
> To weigh in, personally I feel that the major advantages for
ASP.NET<http://ASP.NET>
> 2.0 lie in its ease of deployment (especially with IIS - Rails is a
> hassle to deploy there) and the IDE. Rails wins hands down on
> development time, though there are some web controls that are
> available by default in ASP.NET <http://ASP.NET> 2.0 that AFAIK rails
has
> no equivalent
> for (as of yet). Depends on your needs.
> 
> In terms of ease of maintenance - Rails will probably have
> simpler/shorter code, so that''s a plus, though there are fewer
Rails
> developers out there (vs .NET developers), so it again depends on your
> needs and circumstances.
> 
> Each has its pros and cons - ASP.NET <http://ASP.NET> 2.0 is a nice 
> environment, though
> not as clean as Rails. It also plays nicer with IIS - if you''re
going
> to do a lot up re-deploying, it might be worth investigating Rails/IIS
> yourself to get a better idea of the pitfalls. If it''s going to be
> distributed or highly transactional, .NET/EnterpriseServices has
> better built-in support for distributed transactions and queueing and
> the like, though I''m sure something similar could be done with
Rails
> and DRb (probably not out of the box though).
> 
> There are just too many factors to determine a clear-cut winner - your
> best bet is to protoype some of your application in both and determine
> the pros and cons from there.
> 
> Hope that helps! (though it probably hasn''t :)
> 
> -DF
> 
> On 7/27/05, David Mitchell
<monch1962-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > 1. I believe Rails is reasonably stable now in IIS, and will become
> > more so. The big issues at the moment are the complexity of deploying
> > >1 Rails app to a single IIS box, and performance. Solutions for
both
> > of these are being developed at the moment.
> >
> > 2. In my experience, development in Rails is much faster than in ASP
> > 2. Several reasons:
> > - once you''ve got your model in place, ActiveRecord makes a
lot of
> > complex database manipulation trivial
> > - less lines of code = less bugs
> > - less lines of code = less effort required for maintenance tasks
> > - Ruby is a much more powerful language than VBScript or JScript.
> > Many times, it''s easier to code your ASP stuff in e.g. VB
because of
> > the lack of power in VBScript, but then you''re adding another
layer of
> > complexity to your app
> > - the MVC pattern is fundamental to Rails, and is a very good fit for
> > a large subset of Web apps. To implement MVC in ASP is at best a
> > challenge
> >
> > 3. Need for an agile environment is probably the biggest factor that
> > springs to mind. Do you expect to have your requirements known and
> > documented up front and largely fixed, or do you expect the
> > requirements to be developed at the same time as your code? If the
> > latter, Rails definitely has a big edge over ASP
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Dave M.
> >
> > On 7/27/05, Larry Kelly
<ldk2005-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > I''m working in a complex web app that could have 1000+
users within
> the next
> > > year. It must be run on Windows 2003. Current db is SqlServer
2000.
> > > Company is deciding between Rails and ASP 2.0. I''d like
to get some
> > > feedback on which would be the best to develop in. ( I prefer
Rails :)
> > >
> > > 1. Will Rails be stable in that environment? Will it work with
IIS?
> > >
> > > 2. Is it better for complex webapps than ASP 2.0? Does it provide
> faster
> > > time to market? Easier to maintain, etc.
> > >
> > > 3. What other factors should be considered in making such a far 
> -reaching
> > > decision?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for you comments, and insites.
> > >
> > > -Larry
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails mailing list
> > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails mailing list
> > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

Heya :)
> From: rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
[mailto:rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Larry 
> Kelly
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:32 PM
> To: Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> Subject: [Rails] Rails VS ASP 2.0 on IIS and Windows 2003 server
> 
> 1.  Will Rails be stable in that environment? Will it work with IIS?
I can''t tell you - the posts on the list indicate that Rails and IIS
play
only somewhat well together, and no one has any long term stability and
performance data.
> 2.  Is it better for complex webapps than ASP 2.0?  Does it provide faster
time to market? Easier to 
> maintain,   etc.
I will assume you mean ASP.NET 2.0 and the answer is - it depends.

Rails is a specific framework, running on a specific language. ASP.NET 2.0
is a number of technologies that make up a production environment. 

More specifically you need to be asking is something like "Will C# code
developed for ASP.NET 2.0 using the standard libraries be a competitive
environment to Rails for developing our specific application". The answer
is
"it depends".

Ruby vs. C# aside, there is nothing inherent in the Rails concepts that
cannot and are not being implemented in ASP.NET. In other words, if I go
with Rails I have to give up all of ASP.NET 2.0 and its strengths... when I
go with ASP.NET I have to give up nothing except Ruby - and it isn''t
something I will die without. If I want to use the ActiveRecord concepts in
C# / ASP.NET I can.

So far, every time I have had to make this choice I have decided on ASP.NET.
When I add in the advances in ASP.NET 2.0 (profile management, login, roles,
templating, user definable controls, styling and so on) it has only been
more likely of late.

My reasons generally are that the environment as a whole gives me much wider
flexibility and the ability to use the variety of supported commercial
quality third party add-ons has usually saved me a lot of time. The quality
of documentation, information and developer support available via MS is
simply amazing as well and currently has no equivalent in the Rails world.
> 3.  What other factors should be considered in making such a far -reaching
decision?

I can only tell you what effects my decision.

* Availability of developers

* How much "backing" it has. I am a big fan of having a large,
dedicated
development group behind something that is mission critical. 

* Flexibility

* Support tools (IDE''s, third party support and so on)

* Integration with the production environment

* Documentation and developer support and community size
>  Thanks in advance for you comments, and insites.
You will have to make the choice for your specific situation. I like Rails,
I think it rocks - but I wouldn''t bet the farm on it yet, but then I am
paranoid :)

Soulhuntre
----------
 
http://www.girl2.com  - my girls
http://www.the-estate.com  - my legacy
http://wiki.thegreybook.com - my project
http://weblog.soulhuntre.com - my thoughts

I really did mean ASP.NET <http://ASP.NET> 2.0. Though still in beta, it 
seems like a viable framework when used with Visual Web Designer 2005. Rails 
is in beta as well, I thought I was comparing apples to apples.

I really value all the insights and thoughtful comments. I seem to find more 
help here than on the .NET forums. Which is important to in independent 
developer such as myself. 

-Larry

On 7/27/05, Steve Willer
<steve.willer-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> If the original poster really meant ASP.NET <http://ASP.NET> 2.0,
i.e. the
> beta version of the framework, then I would say don''t build a busy
or
> critical site on it until it''s been up and stabilized and probably
patched
> at least once.
> 
> I wouldn''t trust a beta framework from MS for anything critical.
> 
> 
> Steve
> 
> On 7/26/05, David Felstead
<david.felstead-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Dave - I think the original poster was referring to
ASP.NET<http://ASP.NET>
> > 2.0 rather
> > than vanilla ASP, so point 2 down there is probably moot (though
> > accurate for vanilla ASP).
> > 
> > To weigh in, personally I feel that the major advantages for
ASP.NET<http://ASP.NET>
> > 2.0 lie in its ease of deployment (especially with IIS - Rails is a
> > hassle to deploy there) and the IDE. Rails wins hands down on
> > development time, though there are some web controls that are 
> > available by default in ASP.NET <http://ASP.NET> 2.0 that AFAIK
rails
> > has no equivalent
> > for (as of yet). Depends on your needs.
> > 
> > In terms of ease of maintenance - Rails will probably have
> > simpler/shorter code, so that''s a plus, though there are
fewer Rails
> > developers out there (vs .NET developers), so it again depends on your
> > needs and circumstances.
> > 
> > Each has its pros and cons - ASP.NET <http://ASP.NET> 2.0 is a
nice
> > environment, though
> > not as clean as Rails. It also plays nicer with IIS - if
you''re going
> > to do a lot up re-deploying, it might be worth investigating Rails/IIS
> > yourself to get a better idea of the pitfalls. If it''s going
to be
> > distributed or highly transactional, .NET/EnterpriseServices has
> > better built-in support for distributed transactions and queueing and 
> > the like, though I''m sure something similar could be done
with Rails
> > and DRb (probably not out of the box though).
> > 
> > There are just too many factors to determine a clear-cut winner - your
> > best bet is to protoype some of your application in both and determine
> > the pros and cons from there.
> > 
> > Hope that helps! (though it probably hasn''t :)
> > 
> > -DF
> > 
> > On 7/27/05, David Mitchell
<monch1962-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > 1. I believe Rails is reasonably stable now in IIS, and will
become
> > > more so. The big issues at the moment are the complexity of
deploying
> > > >1 Rails app to a single IIS box, and performance. Solutions
for both
> > > of these are being developed at the moment.
> > > 
> > > 2. In my experience, development in Rails is much faster than in
ASP
> > > 2. Several reasons:
> > > - once you''ve got your model in place, ActiveRecord
makes a lot of
> > > complex database manipulation trivial 
> > > - less lines of code = less bugs
> > > - less lines of code = less effort required for maintenance tasks
> > > - Ruby is a much more powerful language than VBScript or JScript.
> > > Many times, it''s easier to code your ASP stuff in e.g.
VB because of
> > > the lack of power in VBScript, but then you''re adding
another layer of
> > > complexity to your app
> > > - the MVC pattern is fundamental to Rails, and is a very good fit
for
> > > a large subset of Web apps. To implement MVC in ASP is at best a 
> > > challenge
> > >
> > > 3. Need for an agile environment is probably the biggest factor
that
> > > springs to mind. Do you expect to have your requirements known
and
> > > documented up front and largely fixed, or do you expect the 
> > > requirements to be developed at the same time as your code? If
the
> > > latter, Rails definitely has a big edge over ASP
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Dave M.
> > >
> > > On 7/27/05, Larry Kelly <
ldk2005-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > > I''m working in a complex web app that could have
1000+ users within
> > the next
> > > > year. It must be run on Windows 2003. Current db is
SqlServer 2000.
> > > > Company is deciding between Rails and ASP 2.0. I''d
like to get some
> > > > feedback on which would be the best to develop in. ( I
prefer Rails
> > :)
> > > >
> > > > 1. Will Rails be stable in that environment? Will it work
with IIS?
> > > >
> > > > 2. Is it better for complex webapps than ASP 2.0? Does it
provide
> > faster
> > > > time to market? Easier to maintain, etc.
> > > >
> > > > 3. What other factors should be considered in making such a
far
> > -reaching 
> > > > decision?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance for you comments, and insites.
> > > >
> > > > -Larry
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Rails mailing list 
> > > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> > > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails mailing list
> > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails mailing list
> > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> 
> 
>

_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

Larry Kelly wrote:
> I really value all the insights and thoughtful comments. I seem to find 
> more help here than on the .NET forums. Which is important to in 
> independent developer such as myself.
I''d bet one could get help with Java, PHP, Perl, or Python here as
well.
;)