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 bothof 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 .NETIf 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 fastertime 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 -reachingdecision? 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. ;)