Hey List, The subject of this email is "Is Rails worth it?" Let me start by saying I don''t know, that''s what I''m trying to decide. Here is some background on myself. I come from a .Net background where I have my MCSD.Net and MCDBA. I am proficient in .Net, be it, Web, Windows GUI, Windows Services, or Web Services. I like .Net. I think it is a great platform and I feel "productive" in that environment. I would consider myself an "advanced" .Net developer. What I mean by that is that I''m not a beginner...I''m good at it. When I first came across RoR, I was about 2 months into a project using .Net. We, the dev team, had recently started using Basecamp and had been joking about dropping .Net to give it RoR a try. Well, we did. At the time, the main reasons were, in no particular order, free press, the prototype library, a chance to try something new, the MVC architecture, and Basecamp. Now, here I am about 3 months into this project with RoR (5 months total) and I have some doubts about my decision to use RoR. Besides the fact that I am proficient with .Net and knew I could do everything that would be needed with it, here are a few things lingering in the back of my head in regards to Rails: 1) When there is a large number of people using the app, will it scale? And by large number, I mean 100,000+ users (albeit not simultaneously.) PS. Yes, this is another "Will Rails Scale" question. 2) While using ActiveRecord might save me 70% of my time in development, what is the sacrafice when the system is live? I guess it doesn''t really bother me if I had to spend 70% more time in development to have a more effecient data access layer for the life of system, than one that sacarfices the use of stored procedures and possibly generates excess noise in terms of data retreival. This is probably the biggest issue for me. I''m coming from a background where I write all the stored procedures and know excatly what I''m getting. I have light and efficient sp''s. If I need three columns from three different tables, that''s what I ask for, and that''s what I get. Yes, if I later need four, it''s more of a process, but again, "development" time in my situation is somewhat cheap. I''m more concerned about a well running system than not having to think to much about improvements and updates. 3) I hear a lot about web servers crashing, fastCGI needing manual clean up, writing CRON jobs to handle session expiration, and several other things that would be "no brainers" in something like .Net. While I''m sure that all of these could be overcome, at what expense? 4) I develop on Windows. I''m not ashamed to say, that I like windows. Will I forever be second rate if I develop with Rails? What about and IDE, debugging, step into/through code? As I mentioned in 1, many of my concerns are because I''m expecting a BIG audience. Now, I realize that you can "tweak" AR by defining your own sql, or using :include options, or many other methods. But, at the end of the day, if I have to do all that, what has ActiveRecord really done for me? Ultimately, I''m looking for some people who are questioning or have answered some of the things I''ve mentioned. That said, there are some things that don''t matter to me either: 1) .Net only runs on Windows (I don''t care, it''s a web app) 2) .Net & Windows is more expensive (debatable...it''s a shared/hosted environment so the monthly difference is minute) 3) Windows is less secure (debatable) 4) .Net means Micro$oft (so?) 5) You''ll be using SQL Server. (Good, I think it is much better) Let me finish this by saying that I like Rails. I think it is a solid framework. And while in my case the answer might end up being "No, Rails is not worth it", I''m sure that in many others it is. Thanks, Matt _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Use .NET. I love Rails, but with your post, you''ve practically answered your own question :) On 20 Sep 2005, at 7:37 pm, Matt Pantana wrote:> Hey List, > > The subject of this email is "Is Rails worth it?" Let me start > by saying I don''t know, that''s what I''m trying to decide. > > Here is some background on myself. I come from a .Net background > where I have my MCSD.Net and MCDBA. I am proficient in .Net, be > it, Web, Windows GUI, Windows Services, or Web Services. I > like .Net. I think it is a great platform and I feel "productive" > in that environment. I would consider myself an "advanced" .Net > developer. What I mean by that is that I''m not a beginner...I''m > good at it. > > When I first came across RoR, I was about 2 months into a project > using .Net. We, the dev team, had recently started using Basecamp > and had been joking about dropping .Net to give it RoR a try. > Well, we did. At the time, the main reasons were, in no particular > order, free press, the prototype library, a chance to try something > new, the MVC architecture, and Basecamp. > > Now, here I am about 3 months into this project with RoR (5 > months total) and I have some doubts about my decision to use RoR. > Besides the fact that I am proficient with .Net and knew I could do > everything that would be needed with it, here are a few things > lingering in the back of my head in regards to Rails: > > 1) When there is a large number of people using the app, will it > scale? And by large number, I mean 100,000+ users (albeit not > simultaneously.) PS. Yes, this is another "Will Rails Scale" > question. > > > 2) While using ActiveRecord might save me 70% of my time in > development, what is the sacrafice when the system is live? I > guess it doesn''t really bother me if I had to spend 70% more time > in development to have a more effecient data access layer for the > life of system, than one that sacarfices the use of stored > procedures and possibly generates excess noise in terms of data > retreival. This is probably the biggest issue for me. I''m coming > from a background where I write all the stored procedures and know > excatly what I''m getting. I have light and efficient sp''s. If I > need three columns from three different tables, that''s what I ask > for, and that''s what I get. Yes, if I later need four, it''s more > of a process, but again, "development" time in my situation is > somewhat cheap. I''m more concerned about a well running system > than not having to think to much about improvements and updates. > > > 3) I hear a lot about web servers crashing, fastCGI needing manual > clean up, writing CRON jobs to handle session expiration, and > several other things that would be "no brainers" in something > like .Net. While I''m sure that all of these could be overcome, at > what expense? > > > 4) I develop on Windows. I''m not ashamed to say, that I like > windows. Will I forever be second rate if I develop with Rails? > What about and IDE, debugging, step into/through code? > > > As I mentioned in 1, many of my concerns are because I''m expecting > a BIG audience. Now, I realize that you can "tweak" AR by defining > your own sql, or using :include options, or many other methods. > But, at the end of the day, if I have to do all that, what has > ActiveRecord really done for me? > > Ultimately, I''m looking for some people who are questioning or have > answered some of the things I''ve mentioned. That said, there are > some things that don''t matter to me either: > > 1) .Net only runs on Windows (I don''t care, it''s a web app) > 2) .Net & Windows is more expensive (debatable...it''s a shared/ > hosted environment so the monthly difference is minute) > 3) Windows is less secure (debatable) > 4) .Net means Micro$oft (so?) > 5) You''ll be using SQL Server. (Good, I think it is much better) > > > Let me finish this by saying that I like Rails. I think it is a > solid framework. And while in my case the answer might end up > being "No, Rails is not worth it", I''m sure that in many others it is. > > Thanks, > > Matt > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
> The subject of this email is "Is Rails worth it?" Let me start bysaying I don''t know, that''s what I''m trying to decide. Kinda sounds like you''ve already answered your question, no? You''ve established that: * you''re good at developing in .Net * you like using MS products * and it sounds like you''ve put in considerable time and resources into developing your skills with MS technologies with all your certifications ...so, is Rails worth it to *you*? It really doesn''t sound like it to tell you the truth. And hey, more power to you! You''ve found something you like and you''re productive with it so why change if you''re developing what seems to be large and critical production application?
I, too, have been doing .NET for the past few years (am a .NET Architect, as a matter of fact, at Wells Fargo). While I don''t share your enthusiasm for Microsoft products, I can relate to the feeling of being proficient in .NET and IIS / SQL Server / Windows being "what you''re used to". .NET development takes the approach of giving you the basic tools you need to click things together. Writing stored procs is easy. Debugging them is easy. Writing web forms is easy. Linking them together is easy. But you have to do it manually, over and over and over again. Rails gives you a framework that does most of the mundane code for you, albeit in a less-than-optimal way (try perusing the logs that show how the db is hit, for example). As you discover bottlenecks or certain portions that are causing problems, you can replace them easily and elegantly. This is where Rails really shines -- its ability to generate "smart" defaults which you can easily override. If you want the absolute fastest executing code, even .NET is a sidestep -- sure it''s within 5% of C++, but it''s still 5% slower. But your tradeoff is a much better environment. Rails takes that thinking to the extreme. What you sacrifice in CPU cycles, you gain in developer cycles. While developer cycles are cheap in your case, consider this -- your app will never be done. You will always be tweaking things, adding things, moving things, etc. Which of these two worlds offers the best adaptation for your needs? Rails follows the unix methodology of get it to work, get it to work right, then get it to work fast. This is a tried-and-true paradigm, any way you look at it. .NET tries to blur these into a single step. This is good or bad, depending on your viewpoint. At any rate, I wish you luck, whichever technology you choose. On 9/20/05, Dean Matsueda <dmatsueda-1n2u0cAa2q8@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > The subject of this email is "Is Rails worth it?" Let me start by > saying I don''t know, that''s what I''m trying to decide. > > Kinda sounds like you''ve already answered your question, no? You''ve > established that: > > * you''re good at developing in .Net > * you like using MS products > * and it sounds like you''ve put in considerable time and resources into > developing your skills with MS technologies with all your certifications > > ...so, is Rails worth it to *you*? It really doesn''t sound like it to > tell you the truth. And hey, more power to you! You''ve found something > you like and you''re productive with it so why change if you''re > developing what seems to be large and critical production application? > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- Brock Weaver brockweaver-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org /* you are not expected to understand this */ _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> "But, at the end of the day, if I have to do all that, what has > ActiveRecord really done for me"Just a quick response to this one point. Fast prototyping. The sooner you can get a working system, the sooner you can identify the bottlenecks, and in there you put the custom sql. Much of the traditional, handcrafted sql you write in a web app will not get called enough to put massive strain, and in those cases active record does a lot for you. _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Since Basecamp got you into Rails, allow me to use that as an example of why your fears are overstated. Basecamp is currently running on 2 1/2 servers and doing more than half a million web requests per day. More than a hundred thousand people have access to the system (people != paying account, 1 account = 1-X people). It''s not even using page/fragment caching. Bar some slight issues with MySQL lately (which appear to be largely about configuration), we''re scaling very, very well. But, but, you say. This is Basecamp and done by the author of the framework. Can anyone else duplicate that? Why yes. The Robot Co-op is pushing upwards one million web requests per day. They have close to 100,000 users. They do this across 3 servers. So people are making Rails scale to fairly big numbers on fairly small server farms. This of course doesn''t necessarily mean that _you_ can make _your_ application scale to what you need. Just that its unlike to be the framework holding you back. As far as AR being more inefficient than stored procedures: 20% of your app accounts for 80% of the load. With Active Record, you get to complete the 80% of your application where performance isn''t critical really fast, and then you can take your sweet time optimizing the last 20%. This is much preferable to using the same heavy-handed approach on 100% of the app. Platform independence: There''s nothing inherently platform specific in Rails. Yes, Rails is part of an open source ecosystem that from time to time require you to compile things. Compiling things on Windows is some times more inconvenient than on OS X and the ''nixes. But Rails, debugging with breakpoints, etc, is all platform independent. But each his own. If you don''t think Rails is considerably more productive for you than .NET was and if you still want to retain the development style (using stored procedures and whatnot) you were used to in MS-land, then perhaps Rails isn''t the best fit for you. I think Rails offers a strong case over MS tools even on an MS platform, but it''s obviously an even stronger case if you''re also interested in using the rest of the open source stack (mysql/pgsql, apache/lighttpd, linux/freebsd, etc). In conclusion: Rails has been demonstrated to be scalable for a good number of applications at the size you envision. So that''s unlikely to be your problem. But the cultural fit may be better somewhere else. And you should definitely pay attention to where the cultural fit is strongest. In the end, you need to be a happy programmer to be a productive one. -- David Heinemeier Hansson http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework
On 9/20/05, Dean Matsueda <dmatsueda@bsr.org> wrote:> You've found something > you like and you're productive with it so why change if you're > developing what seems to be large and critical production application?If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything like a nail. - Abraham Maslow As far as web development and programming in general, I want to learn everything I possibly can. There are things at the bottom of my list of course.. emacs, fortran, etc. But I think learning Ruby and Rails is well worth it. Having used several different PHP-based MVC frameworks in the past, Rails seems much cleaner than any of them.. and I suspect it's mostly because Ruby is such a clean language to begin with. Another tool in the old tool belt seems like a Good Thing(TM) to me. I couldn't tell you the job listings I've read lately where they want someone with multi-language skills. I can see where a .net person would be turned off by Rails, all those command line tasks generating controllers and models and what-not might seem overwhelming, but I feel the same way when I open VS.net. Learning Rails doesn't mean you can't write C# anymore. :) -- Greg Donald Zend Certified Engineer MySQL Core Certification http://destiney.com/ _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Learning Rails doesn''t mean you can''t write C# anymore. :) [snip] It just means you won''t want to :-) -- Brock Weaver brockweaver-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org /* you are not expected to understand this */ _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
"As far as AR being more inefficient than stored procedures: 20% of your app accounts for 80% of the load. With Active Record, you get to complete the 80% of your application where performance isn''t critical really fast, and then you can take your sweet time optimizing the last 20%. This is much preferable to using the same heavy-handed approach on 100% of the app." ...Touché... As I was writing the original email, I thought I had already decided to go back to .Net. However, the swiftness of all the replies, DHH noless, showed me how quickly the community moves to answer questions. I like that, as I''m sure I''ll have many questions. No doubt my "lapse" in confidence about RoR is a natural part of learning anything new. I''m probably five minutes from professing complete allegiance to the framework. Long Live the Framework! (Rails that is) --matt On 9/20/05, David Heinemeier Hansson <david.heinemeier-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Since Basecamp got you into Rails, allow me to use that as an example > of why your fears are overstated. Basecamp is currently running on 2 > 1/2 servers and doing more than half a million web requests per day. > More than a hundred thousand people have access to the system (people > != paying account, 1 account = 1-X people). It''s not even using > page/fragment caching. Bar some slight issues with MySQL lately (which > appear to be largely about configuration), we''re scaling very, very > well. > > But, but, you say. This is Basecamp and done by the author of the > framework. Can anyone else duplicate that? Why yes. The Robot Co-op is > pushing upwards one million web requests per day. They have close to > 100,000 users. They do this across 3 servers. > > So people are making Rails scale to fairly big numbers on fairly small > server farms. This of course doesn''t necessarily mean that _you_ can > make _your_ application scale to what you need. Just that its unlike > to be the framework holding you back. > > As far as AR being more inefficient than stored procedures: 20% of > your app accounts for 80% of the load. With Active Record, you get to > complete the 80% of your application where performance isn''t critical > really fast, and then you can take your sweet time optimizing the last > 20%. This is much preferable to using the same heavy-handed approach > on 100% of the app. > > Platform independence: There''s nothing inherently platform specific in > Rails. Yes, Rails is part of an open source ecosystem that from time > to time require you to compile things. Compiling things on Windows is > some times more inconvenient than on OS X and the ''nixes. But Rails, > debugging with breakpoints, etc, is all platform independent. > > But each his own. If you don''t think Rails is considerably more > productive for you than .NET was and if you still want to retain the > development style (using stored procedures and whatnot) you were used > to in MS-land, then perhaps Rails isn''t the best fit for you. I think > Rails offers a strong case over MS tools even on an MS platform, but > it''s obviously an even stronger case if you''re also interested in > using the rest of the open source stack (mysql/pgsql, apache/lighttpd, > linux/freebsd, etc). > > In conclusion: Rails has been demonstrated to be scalable for a good > number of applications at the size you envision. So that''s unlikely to > be your problem. But the cultural fit may be better somewhere else. > And you should definitely pay attention to where the cultural fit is > strongest. In the end, you need to be a happy programmer to be a > productive one. > -- > David Heinemeier Hansson > http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain > http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management > http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager > http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework > _______________________________________________ > 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
Coming from WebObjects to Rails, I say, yes! In WebObjects I had an IDE, professional documentation, deployment system, application instance management, and time tested tools. But one rainy day, while plugging away on a clients application I saw that famous video. The next day I booked a trip to San Francisco to see David, Jason and Matt give the Building Basecamp presentation. Was it snake oil they were selling? On more than a one occasion I felt that way. Because it was hard letting go of years of experience, code, and the familiar comfort experience brings. But today, 9 months and 3 applications later, I just get things done. More time and effort goes into design than coding. If you are going succeed and enjoy using Rails, get rid of the crutch. The one in the back of your head that keeps saying, it would be easier, faster, or better – if only I used the other platform. Sure, there are still some growing pains in Rails. As you mentioned, deployment and windows support are not pretty pictures today. But the Rail community has some of the smartest developers I have ever seen, and they are tackling these issues. Rails is disruptive, and disruption is not for everyone. Good luck with your choice! -- Lon Baker
> As I was writing the original email, I thought I had already decided to go > back to .Net. However, the swiftness of all the replies, DHH noless, showed > me how quickly the community moves to answer questions. I like that, as I''m > sure I''ll have many questions. No doubt my "lapse" in confidence about RoR > is a natural part of learning anything new. I''m probably five minutes from > professing complete allegiance to the framework. > > Long Live the Framework! (Rails that is) > > --mattIf you like SQL Server so much, have you thought about giving Postgresql a try? Optimization with stored procedures and views are still possible. There''s even a nice windows GUI to manage it: http://sqlmanager.net/en/products/postgresql/manager (they also have GUIs for MySQL and Firebird if you''re interested). I''m not sure if you can get the native ruby driver compiled in windows though, but this is the case with Mysql AFAIK. -- rick http://techno-weenie.net
On 9/20/05, Brock Weaver <brockweaver-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Learning Rails doesn''t mean you can''t write C# anymore. :) > [snip] > > It just means you won''t want to :-)So very true!!! (Java in my case)
One advantage of using almost any other framework (even for a single project) is that it will give you insight into design advantages and and limitations of the platforms with which you''re most familiar. Learning is always time-consuming and painful (even when it''s fun). Personally, I won''t use single-platform solutions. I''ve never even owned a Windows machine. Yes, that has cost me at times. On the other hand, it has gotten me into some very cool places I never would have gone had I stayed within my comfort zone. Like several on this list, I moved over from WebObjects, but that was far from the only web technology I''ve used. I''m not saying not to do .Net -- you obviously like it, and there''s plenty of work out there for .Net developers. -- _Deirdre http://deirdre.net
Greg Donald wrote: ...> > I can see where a .net person would be turned off by Rails, all those > command line tasks generating controllers and models and what-not > might seem overwhelming, but I feel the same way when I open VS.net.Shocking as this might sound, there are an amazing number of Windows developers who not only know how to open a cmd shell, but are skilled in actually typing and running commands there as well. The use of the shell is probably no more overwhelming to Windows developers than it is to Mac developers. After all, Windows developers manage to handle multi-button mice. :) (And besides, you can code .net on mac and ''nix machines, too.) James -- http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
James Britt wrote:> Shocking as this might sound, there are an amazing number of Windows > developers who not only know how to open a cmd shell, but are skilled > in actually typing and running commands there as well.Not just Windows developers, Windows *users* as well. I wouldn''t be caught dead without CygWin :).> > The use of the shell is probably no more overwhelming to Windows > developers than it is to Mac developers.The Windows (NT) shell, to be distinguished from the DOS shell, is almost usable. But I can''t go back since I got CygWin.> > After all, Windows developers manage to handle multi-button mice.And three-button mice work on a Mac now, right? :) One of these days I''ll learn how to work a two-button mouse again ... maybe. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com
At 9:58 PM -0700 9/20/05, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:>And three-button mice work on a Mac now, right?OSX has supported multi-button pick devices since Version 10.0. My personal favorite is the Kensington Optical Elite mouse. -r -- email: rdm-go8te9J4rpw@public.gmane.org; phone: +1 650-873-7841 http://www.cfcl.com - Canta Forda Computer Laboratory http://www.cfcl.com/Meta - The FreeBSD Browser, Meta Project, etc.
Here is my problem: I have three databases, and I want to do CRUD on each one of them. I would like to run scaffold generator three times and then link together the three controllers with another screen, that just has 3 link-to''s on it. Is this feasible? Can a link-to (as I remember) link to another controller''s action methods? Thanks in advance, John B
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:> James Britt wrote: > >> Shocking as this might sound, there are an amazing number of Windows >> developers who not only know how to open a cmd shell, but are skilled >> in actually typing and running commands there as well. > > > Not just Windows developers, Windows *users* as well. I wouldn''t be > caught dead without CygWin :). > >> >> The use of the shell is probably no more overwhelming to Windows >> developers than it is to Mac developers. > > > The Windows (NT) shell, to be distinguished from the DOS shell, is > almost usable. But I can''t go back since I got CygWin. >That''s almost exactly my experience, with one slight hitch: having to drop to cmd.exe to run the one-click-installer ruby. Has anyone got that to work from within the cygwin environment yet? Is it trivial and I''ve just missed the trick? -- Alex
While you''re obviously proficient in the .Net framework, how long did it take you to get there? If you''re in the position of having to bring people up to speed with a framework quickly, I''ve found the learning curve for both Ruby and Rails to be very shallow. It''s very quick to get a new developer up to speed in it if necessary. -- Alex
Alex Young wrote:>That''s almost exactly my experience, with one slight hitch: having to >drop to cmd.exe to run the one-click-installer ruby. Has anyone got >that to work from within the cygwin environment yet? Is it trivial and >I''ve just missed the trick? > >IIRC there is a CygWin Ruby and a Windows Installer Ruby and they are two different builds! Some expert correct me if I''m wrong. I have not attempted to use the installer Ruby on a Windows system, mostly because I don''t normally do web development on my Windows system at work, and I don''t run Windows at home. I did bring up the Rails "Congratulations" page in CygWin using WEBrick, but I haven''t attempted to connect it with the CygWin sqlite or postgresql. CygWin is becoming IMHO a "real platform". There are actually web apps mounted on the CAMP (CygWin Apache MySQL PHP) platform, and many of my favorite workstation tools -- texmacs, maxima, etc. -- come bundled with it. And almost every other open source tool I''ve ever encountered can be compiled and executed under CygWin. In a lot of ways it''s better than having, say, VMWare running Linux. CWSR anyone? (CygWin WEBrick SQLite Rails) :) -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:> > > Alex Young wrote: > >> That''s almost exactly my experience, with one slight hitch: having to >> drop to cmd.exe to run the one-click-installer ruby. Has anyone got >> that to work from within the cygwin environment yet? Is it trivial and >> I''ve just missed the trick? >> >> > IIRC there is a CygWin Ruby and a Windows Installer Ruby and they are > two different builds!Thats exactly my point. Not only are they different builds, but they have different environments and libraries, and the last time I tried to get Rails running under Cygwin, the Cygwin ruby version was trailing the OCI version, and it didn''t work. I forget why, exactly. In general, the OCI version seems more complete, so I''d rather use that from within Cygwin than use the cygwin ruby... -- Alex
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:> > > Alex Young wrote: > >> That''s almost exactly my experience, with one slight hitch: having to >> drop to cmd.exe to run the one-click-installer ruby. Has anyone got >> that to work from within the cygwin environment yet? Is it trivial and >> I''ve just missed the trick? >> >> > IIRC there is a CygWin Ruby and a Windows Installer Ruby and they are > two different builds!Thats exactly my point. Not only are they different builds, but they have different environments and libraries, and the last time I tried to get Rails running under Cygwin, the Cygwin ruby version was trailing the OCI version, and it didn''t work. I forget why, exactly. In general, the OCI version seems more complete, so I''d rather use that from within Cygwin than use the cygwin ruby... -- Alex
On 9/20/05, Matt Pantana <matt.pantana-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> 1) .Net only runs on Windows (I don''t care, it''s a web app) > 2) .Net & Windows is more expensive (debatable...it''s a shared/hosted > environment so the monthly difference is minute) > 3) Windows is less secure (debatable) > 4) .Net means Micro$oft (so?) > 5) You''ll be using SQL Server. (Good, I think it is much better)Number 1 is not true with the mono-project. It''s actually progressed very nicely, and the web framework is extremely good. Number 4 is not correct by extension then, either.
There was a good discussion of Mono over at /. One comment, in particular, points out some danger areas for Mono: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162579&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=109&mode=thread&cid=13588090 I know what de Icaza says, but there''s always been a gray area when you move from C# to systems derived from other parts of the .NET framework -- patented parts. On 9/21/05, Josh Charles <josh.charles-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On 9/20/05, Matt Pantana <matt.pantana-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > 1) .Net only runs on Windows (I don''t care, it''s a web app) > > 2) .Net & Windows is more expensive (debatable...it''s a shared/hosted > > environment so the monthly difference is minute) > > 3) Windows is less secure (debatable) > > 4) .Net means Micro$oft (so?) > > 5) You''ll be using SQL Server. (Good, I think it is much better) > > Number 1 is not true with the mono-project. It''s actually progressed > very nicely, and the web framework is extremely good. Number 4 is not > correct by extension then, either. >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails