Hello All, I have been put in a tough situation at work. I have been developing rails applications for the past 2 years and thoroughly enjoy what I am doing. However it has been bestowed upon me to give an objective summary leading to the benefits of rails versus using Microsoft''s MVC capabilities. I have been going back and forth with colleges on this and everyone has a response to how "their" technology is better. I am looking for some other ideas / reasons why you people in the community like rails as a way to gather more evidence of to why we should use rails in an "enterprise" (the buzz word everyone around here uses) environment. Any opinions are greatly welcomed. I love rails and dont want to go down with out a fight but need some good ammo and am looking for the community for advice as a way to answer the question "Why is Rails better"? Thanks, -Chris --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I may have to do such a comparison in the future. I was planning to watch the videos at http://www.asp.net/learn/mvc-videos/ and then play with ASP.NET MVC a little to get a feel for it. Based on the two videos that I''ve watched so far, I feel as though ASP.NET MVC is more complex than Rails and requires more effort to start a project. I can''t articulate more than that right now. Maybe you can take a similar approach. Also, I wonder if the guys at http://www.softiesonrails.com/ have any insights or opinions. Regards, Craig -- Craig Demyanovich Mutually Human Software http://mutuallyhuman.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
* The Rails stack has zero licensing fees (argument can go a long way in a tough economy) On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Chris Johnson <chris-dAXfyQEfk+W1Z/+hSey0Gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hello All, > > I have been put in a tough situation at work. I have been developing rails > applications for the past 2 years and thoroughly enjoy what I am doing. > However it has been bestowed upon me to give an objective summary leading to > the benefits of rails versus using Microsoft''s MVC capabilities. > > I have been going back and forth with colleges on this and everyone has a > response to how "their" technology is better. I am looking for some other > ideas / reasons why you people in the community like rails as a way to > gather more evidence of to why we should use rails in an "enterprise" (the > buzz word everyone around here uses) environment. > > Any opinions are greatly welcomed. I love rails and dont want to go down > with out a fight but need some good ammo and am looking for the community > for advice as a way to answer the question "Why is Rails better"? > > > Thanks, > > -Chris > > > >-- Robby Russell Chief Evangelist, Partner PLANET ARGON, LLC design // development // hosting w/Ruby on Rails http://planetargon.com/ http://robbyonrails.com/ http://twitter.com/planetargon aim: planetargon +1 503 445 2457 +1 877 55 ARGON [toll free] +1 815 642 4068 [fax] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I''d go to a .Net MVC group and tell them how great it all sounds and that your considering using it in your enterprise. Then tell them what you really want to know is what they >don''t< like about it. That may give you some insight into what your coworkers don''t like about it but aren''t willing to admit out of fear it might hurt their argument. Then if rails happens to not have those same issues you''ve got something to work with. I took a quick look for a group myself and they seem pretty thin though... hmmm Maybe that''s a drawback in itself? good luck! On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, Chris Johnson <ch...-dAXfyQEfk+W1Z/+hSey0Gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hello All, > > I have been put in a tough situation at work. I have been developing rails > applications for the past 2 years and thoroughly enjoy what I am doing. > However it has been bestowed upon me to give an objective summary leading to > the benefits of rails versus using Microsoft''s MVC capabilities. > > I have been going back and forth with colleges on this and everyone has a > response to how "their" technology is better. I am looking for some other > ideas / reasons why you people in the community like rails as a way to > gather more evidence of to why we should use rails in an "enterprise" (the > buzz word everyone around here uses) environment. > > Any opinions are greatly welcomed. I love rails and dont want to go down > with out a fight but need some good ammo and am looking for the community > for advice as a way to answer the question "Why is Rails better"? > > Thanks, > > -Chris--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, Chris Johnson <ch...-dAXfyQEfk+W1Z/+hSey0Gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I have been put in a tough situation at work. I have been developing rails > applications for the past 2 years and thoroughly enjoy what I am doing. > However it has been bestowed upon me to give an objective summary leading to > the benefits of rails versus using Microsoft''s MVC capabilities. > > I have been going back and forth with colleges on this and everyone has a > response to how "their" technology is better. I am looking for some other > ideas / reasons why you people in the community like rails as a way to > gather more evidence of to why we should use rails in an "enterprise" (the > buzz word everyone around here uses) environment. > > Any opinions are greatly welcomed. I love rails and dont want to go down > with out a fight but need some good ammo and am looking for the community > for advice as a way to answer the question "Why is Rails better"?You could throw all sorts of reasons at their feet and I still worry that for the most part it would be falling on deaf ears. There have been countless time I have heard people completely throw any non- Microsoft, IBM or HP solution out the door because of some pre- existing ideals they have. Its way less common today but still very prevalent. Rails is a mature framework, ruby is a fantastic language but for the most part it still expects you to have a clue about what you''re doing. It takes a few hats to be able to develop, test and host a rails app. In the .net world everything (mostly) is going to be hosted/done Microsoft''s way... its hard to fight a fight like this if you are the only one fighting for rails, phb''s want to be able to fire you and call Microsoft when they need help. To be honest I would assume that someone in a leadership position over a developer using rails would have seen value in it by now, which leads me to think that the boss has no clue and is easily swayed by any marketing documents. Rails is very opinionated and has choice some positions on things that not everyone else agrees with, and the beauty of that is people were passionate enough to go out and create their own frameworks instead of accepting what the core team decides. Like I said, Rails is a mature well supported framework for developing web applications. Ruby if a great language and has only gotten better since a large group of developers started to use it when the moved to rails. Rails is open & ruby is open you have a choice when it comes to runtimes and hosting environments. If you get into metaprogramming and then try some of the fantastic things you''re able to do in ruby with a language like c# you''re going to be disappointed. Ultimately I would say that it comes down to you, what do you want to do? If your happy with rails why stick around a shop that''s not? To sum it up: Rails... * $0 licensing cost to deploy, build and maintain rails apps, this can change of course if you decide to use certain OS''s, databases, IDE''s etc. But if you have a computer and an internet connection.. thats all you need. * Rails has a large community of active developers that you can rely on for support. * Rails will have better documentation for quite a while. * Rails/Ruby are mature. * Routing is easier and cleaner * Choice of free testing frameworks with great documentation is much broader. Cheers, -Mark Turner --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Mark Turner <mark-q0lyiXvcrHzR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Rails is a mature frameworkNo, it''s not. How can you say something like that after everything that''s changed from 2.2 -> 2.3 ? Or knowing what''s likely to change with 3.0 when more of Merb gets merged in? When I read things like "middleware layers being completely rewritten" it leads me to question why they were written so incorrectly to start with that they needed to be completely rewritten. When I read things like "memory sessions have been removed" I gotta wonder who thought they were a good idea to start with? Newsflash: some of use were using those. (Yes I''m aware of how to get them back using the plugin, that''s not the point.) If you''re gonna put something in there, have a good reason for putting it in there, have a reason so good that you won''t later find an opposing reason strong enough to remove it. The Rails API and docs change constantly and are often out of sync. Last month for example, api.rubyonrails.com was showing new 2.3 features before 2.3 was even released. How''d you like to be a new guy scratching his head over grouped_options_for_select being in the docs but not in the framework? I could much more easily accept the reverse case. And what about the gem servers that are constantly up and down? How can newcomers have any faith in Rail''s maturity when you can''t even install it sometimes? And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now. I have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day. I love working in Rails, it''s the fastest way I know of to build a website, but mature is the last thing I''d ever say about it. I have absolutely no faith in the API remaining the same from even a .1 to a .2 release, much less 2.x to 3.0. If you can''t count on the user-level API being stable how can you even begin to say it''s mature? -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Greg Donald <gdonald-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Mark Turner <mark-q0lyiXvcrHzR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> Rails is a mature framework > > No, it''s not. > > How can you say something like that after everything that''s changed > from 2.2 -> 2.3 ? Or knowing what''s likely to change with 3.0 when > more of Merb gets merged in? > > When I read things like "middleware layers being completely rewritten" > it leads me to question why they were written so incorrectly to start > with that they needed to be completely rewritten. When I read things > like "memory sessions have been removed" I gotta wonder who thought > they were a good idea to start with? Newsflash: some of use were > using those. (Yes I''m aware of how to get them back using the plugin, > that''s not the point.) If you''re gonna put something in there, have a > good reason for putting it in there, have a reason so good that you > won''t later find an opposing reason strong enough to remove it. > > The Rails API and docs change constantly and are often out of sync. > Last month for example, api.rubyonrails.com was showing new 2.3 > features before 2.3 was even released. How''d you like to be a new guy > scratching his head over grouped_options_for_select being in the docs > but not in the framework? I could much more easily accept the reverse > case. > > And what about the gem servers that are constantly up and down? How > can newcomers have any faith in Rail''s maturity when you can''t even > install it sometimes? > > And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast > that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now. I > have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day. >I certainly agree with a few of your points, but you can''t compare a language with a framework. Ruby, the language, hasn''t changed that much from 1.8.x to 1.9.x. So, the original Ruby book is still usable. You could, though, compare Rails with a framework like Grails, which is much younger and more stable in the sense that it does not change as often as Rails. Probably, with Rails 3 we shall see some stability in the code, and some speed improvements: I was actually surprised to learn that Rails runs much faster with the JRuby interpreter when compared to the C version of the interpreter. I really love Ruby and Rails, but I still think that they need to improve quite a bit. The interpreter may have improved already with version 1.9, but Rails will only be considered api stable after version 3.0, because right now, like you say, the books can''t keep up with the framework itself. If you look at the number of Grails books out there, they are still usable, and if there are some changes, aren''t that major. You can always find the solution on their website. Those are my 2 cents. Fidel. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Greg Donald a écrit, le 04/04/2009 12:03 AM :> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Mark Turner <mark-q0lyiXvcrHzR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> Rails is a mature framework >> > > No, it''s not. > > How can you say something like that after everything that''s changed > from 2.2 -> 2.3 ? Or knowing what''s likely to change with 3.0 when > more of Merb gets merged in? >Nobody forces anybody to upgrade. I''ve Rails 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 applications running and only upgraded them when it made sense to do so (subjective estimate of long term cost of waiting for another release before upgrading > cost of upgrading now). Rails 2.1 is mature enough to me right now, I only used 2.2 and 2.3 because they''ll probably be supported longer.> When I read things like "middleware layers being completely rewritten" > it leads me to question why they were written so incorrectly to start > with that they needed to be completely rewritten. When I read things > like "memory sessions have been removed" I gotta wonder who thought > they were a good idea to start with? Newsflash: some of use were > using those. (Yes I''m aware of how to get them back using the plugin, > that''s not the point.) If you''re gonna put something in there, have a > good reason for putting it in there, have a reason so good that you > won''t later find an opposing reason strong enough to remove it. >Shit happens :-) Designing an application is hard enough, designing a framework to support a variety of applications is harder.> The Rails API and docs change constantly and are often out of sync. > Last month for example, api.rubyonrails.comWhy use it ? For what I know this has always been the edge documentation. When I want documentation for my Rails versions I use http://localhost:8808.> was showing new 2.3 > features before 2.3 was even released. How''d you like to be a new guy > scratching his head over grouped_options_for_select being in the docs > but not in the framework? I could much more easily accept the reverse > case. > > And what about the gem servers that are constantly up and down? How > can newcomers have any faith in Rail''s maturity when you can''t even > install it sometimes? >Nothing to do with the framework itself. Only a problem if you don''t have access to packaged versions of these gems (I''m not familiar with these problems : Gentoo mirrors work well enough).> And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast > that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now.Only if you don''t install the Rails version the book was written for (why would you install another as a beginner ?). Anyway I''m not the best person to answer that: I learn from blog posts, documentation and source code, not books anymore.> I > have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day. >Hum, I''m not doing a MVC web app in Perl even with Catalyst. Note that you are comparing apple with oranges, the Pickaxe is very usable right now. These books will be thrown away when people want to learn Perl6, doest it make Perl5 immature? I''d say Perl5 is not the brightest language around, but it *is* mature.> I love working in Rails, it''s the fastest way I know of to build a > website, but mature is the last thing I''d ever say about it. I have > absolutely no faith in the API remaining the same from even a .1 to a > .2 release, much less 2.x to 3.0.I agree, but: - why upgrade if you don''t need to ? - if you need to, it''s not that hard to upgrade once you are coding Rails apps for your living (why would you upgrade if you don''t ?): deprecated methods should be right in front of your eyes when you run your tests/specs. Lionel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
To me it''s mostly about the Open Source culture: Not only Rails, but
the entire stack as many have pointed out. Open source is not only
about free (as in beer), but the freedom to do whatever the heck you
want with it - for instance, deploy on nginx with mongrel, or thin, or
passenger, under any number of VMs and OSes, as well as databases.
This is the kind of freedom you get on an open source environment,
much unlike Microsoft. By using .Net MVC, not only are you locking
your "VM" to the .Net framework (not sure if Mono is a viable option),
but also you would have to deploy on the windows stack, and get ready
to pay for licensing fees for both Windows Server and SQL Server. It
does add up, especially if/when you scale horizontally. Be sure to
bring this up when they make the point the MS .Net MVC was recently
open sourced.
The Rails community has lead the path in web development industry with
practices like TDD and BDD, DRY, YAGNI, convention over configuration,
full integration with javascript frameworks enabling the use of Ajax,
etc. These are certainly possible and encouraged by other frameworks,
but Rails lead that path and made it real and tangible.
Finally, Ruby is just a joy to work with. I firmly believe that it
helps developers write shippable code faster, and with less bugs.
Blocks and procs make life more enjoyable. Not having to write BS code
to simply call something on each element of an array, by example, just
talks for itself:
Here''s a brief example:
for (int i = 0; i < my_array.length; i++) {
my_array[i].something()
}
Or:
my_array.map(&:something)
Same goes with the dynamic nature of the language and how it makes
meta-programming accessible...
The bottom line is that by using Ruby (and Rails), you will most
likely be able to develop new features quicker, you and your team will
be happier, and you''ll have a broader set of deployment options for
your apps. What''s most important for the business is getting features
out the door, with as few bugs as possible, and being able to maintain
them throughout the life cycle of the product. In this sense, Rails
delivers.
Good luck,
-H
On Apr 3, 5:18 pm, Mark Turner
<m...-q0lyiXvcrHzR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, Chris Johnson
<ch...-dAXfyQEfk+W1Z/+hSey0Gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > I have been put in a tough situation at work. I have been developing
rails
> > applications for the past 2 years and thoroughly enjoy what I am
doing.
> > However it has been bestowed upon me to give an objective summary
leading to
> > the benefits of rails versus using Microsoft''s MVC
capabilities.
>
> > I have been going back and forth with colleges on this and everyone
has a
> > response to how "their" technology is better. I am looking
for some other
> > ideas / reasons why you people in the community like rails as a way to
> > gather more evidence of to why we should use rails in an
"enterprise" (the
> > buzz word everyone around here uses) environment.
>
> > Any opinions are greatly welcomed. I love rails and dont want to go
down
> > with out a fight but need some good ammo and am looking for the
community
> > for advice as a way to answer the question "Why is Rails
better"?
>
> You could throw all sorts of reasons at their feet and I still worry
> that for the most part it would be falling on deaf ears. There have
> been countless time I have heard people completely throw any non-
> Microsoft, IBM or HP solution out the door because of some pre-
> existing ideals they have. Its way less common today but still very
> prevalent.
>
> Rails is a mature framework, ruby is a fantastic language but for the
> most part it still expects you to have a clue about what you''re
doing.
> It takes a few hats to be able to develop, test and host a rails app.
> In the .net world everything (mostly) is going to be hosted/done
> Microsoft''s way... its hard to fight a fight like this if you are
the
> only one fighting for rails, phb''s want to be able to fire you and
> call Microsoft when they need help. To be honest I would assume that
> someone in a leadership position over a developer using rails would
> have seen value in it by now, which leads me to think that the boss
> has no clue and is easily swayed by any marketing documents. Rails is
> very opinionated and has choice some positions on things that not
> everyone else agrees with, and the beauty of that is people were
> passionate enough to go out and create their own frameworks instead of
> accepting what the core team decides.
>
> Like I said, Rails is a mature well supported framework for developing
> web applications. Ruby if a great language and has only gotten better
> since a large group of developers started to use it when the moved to
> rails. Rails is open & ruby is open you have a choice when it comes to
> runtimes and hosting environments. If you get into metaprogramming and
> then try some of the fantastic things you''re able to do in ruby
with a
> language like c# you''re going to be disappointed.
>
> Ultimately I would say that it comes down to you, what do you want to
> do? If your happy with rails why stick around a shop that''s not?
>
> To sum it up:
> Rails...
> * $0 licensing cost to deploy, build and maintain rails apps, this can
> change of course if you decide to use certain OS''s, databases,
IDE''s
> etc. But if you have a computer and an internet connection.. thats all
> you need.
> * Rails has a large community of active developers that you can rely
> on for support.
> * Rails will have better documentation for quite a while.
> * Rails/Ruby are mature.
> * Routing is easier and cleaner
> * Choice of free testing frameworks with great documentation is much
> broader.
>
> Cheers,
> -Mark Turner
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Apr 3, 3:03 pm, Greg Donald <gdon...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Mark Turner <m...-q0lyiXvcrHzR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Rails is a mature framework > > No, it''s not.This conversation will go way out of Chris''s question''s. Sorry Chris.> > How can you say something like that after everything that''s changed > from 2.2 -> 2.3 ? Or knowing what''s likely to change with 3.0 when > more of Merb gets merged in? > > When I read things like "middleware layers being completely rewritten" > it leads me to question why they were written so incorrectly to start > with that they needed to be completely rewritten. When I read things > like "memory sessions have been removed" I gotta wonder who thought > they were a good idea to start with? Newsflash: some of use were > using those. (Yes I''m aware of how to get them back using the plugin, > that''s not the point.) If you''re gonna put something in there, have a > good reason for putting it in there, have a reason so good that you > won''t later find an opposing reason strong enough to remove it.You''re trying to tell me that backwards compatibly is the key to determining maturity? I disagree completely. Just like moving from gcc 3.2 to 3.4.. regressions happen. Hence the reason for the developer to stay on top of the changes in the frameworks, tools and languages they use for a living. Hell look at Java 1.4 to the current 6.x (which if you follow their previous versioning it would be 1.6)changes most of the user exposed API''s have been left alone but there are plenty of examples of changes that would cause you to experience pain deploying your 1.4 app on any 6.0 jre. This is one of the reasons testing has become so popular, not just in our community but in most other development communities. And I calling rails mature in comparison to .net mvc seems pretty rock solid to me.> The Rails API and docs change constantly and are often out of sync. > Last month for example, api.rubyonrails.com was showing new 2.3 > features before 2.3 was even released. How''d you like to be a new guy > scratching his head over grouped_options_for_select being in the docs > but not in the framework? I could much more easily accept the reverse > case.Agreed.> And what about the gem servers that are constantly up and down? How > can newcomers have any faith in Rail''s maturity when you can''t even > install it sometimes?Rubyforge happens to be the standard gem repo right now, and installing rails through gem is the de-facto standard method but hardly the only way.> > And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast > that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now. I > have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day.Hmm and I seem to have an 8 year old ruby book that is still just as valid as it is now, this is about Rails not Ruby. Try opening the Catalyst book from packt and tell me things won''t be different today. This is an issue with computer books that''s been around forever.> I love working in Rails, it''s the fastest way I know of to build a > website, but mature is the last thing I''d ever say about it. I have > absolutely no faith in the API remaining the same from even a .1 to a > .2 release, much less 2.x to 3.0. If you can''t count on the > user-level API being stable how can you even begin to say it''s mature?I guess we have different views about maturity. Oh well. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Perhaps this article [ http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/fubu-mvc ] on FubuMVC, "an alternative MVC implementation in ASP.NET," might be of interest, since it includes some reasons that the creators of FubuMVC prefer it to Microsoft''s MVC implementation for ASP.NET. Regards, Craig -- Craig Demyanovich Mutually Human Software http://mutuallyhuman.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast > that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now. I > have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day.Wow yours last 6 months! I ordered the latest AWD with Rails book sometime around last October and it was supposed shipped in December. Just got it last week and it''s already out of date because it doesn''t cover all the great new features in 2.3 not to mention what''s coming in 3.0 here very shortly. Not that it''s still not useful but UGH! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I guess the case I''d make for it is that your company should have been using MVC all along. While Rails is an MVC framework, there are multiple benefits to using Rails besides three letters. Substruct, Castle, and others have been available but none of your managers have been that interested in pushing it. This sounds, sadly, like an excuse to stay with the Microsoft developers because there are a lot of those around. The problem with that is that if those developers aren''t thinking about MVC already, they''re not gonna benefit much from this now UNLESS MS pushes future development in ASP.Net to the MVC pattern. Ruby, and Rails, give you these features either completely or much easier. * Full stack open source. You are not reliant on a vendor to release a patch. If a security concern arises, everything from the views to the server itself can be patched. Easily. * Testing. It''s easy to talk about writing tests, and I know for a fact that most places that write code for other people just don''t do it in the .Net world. I cannot live that way and I vbet you can''t either. N:Unit exists, but have you tried using it? In the Rails world, writing simple or complex tests are so easy to write you''re foolish if you don''t. * Experience: .Net has been around forever, but the MVC framework is new and if past products have been any indication (.net v1 and v2, silverlight 1 and 2, etc) are any indication, it''s just *good enough* and surely not *good*. While you probably have a lot of .net developers, you probably don''t have a lot who *know* the .Net MVC framework. With Rails, it''s easy to find someone with 3 or 4 years of experience with the whole stack, including testing. Of course, this is exactly what you''d expect me to say, right CJ? On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Mark Turner <mark-q0lyiXvcrHzR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On Apr 3, 3:03 pm, Greg Donald <gdon...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Mark Turner <m...-q0lyiXvcrHzR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> > Rails is a mature framework >> >> No, it''s not. > > This conversation will go way out of Chris''s question''s. Sorry Chris. > >> >> How can you say something like that after everything that''s changed >> from 2.2 -> 2.3 ? Or knowing what''s likely to change with 3.0 when >> more of Merb gets merged in? >> >> When I read things like "middleware layers being completely rewritten" >> it leads me to question why they were written so incorrectly to start >> with that they needed to be completely rewritten. When I read things >> like "memory sessions have been removed" I gotta wonder who thought >> they were a good idea to start with? Newsflash: some of use were >> using those. (Yes I''m aware of how to get them back using the plugin, >> that''s not the point.) If you''re gonna put something in there, have a >> good reason for putting it in there, have a reason so good that you >> won''t later find an opposing reason strong enough to remove it. > > You''re trying to tell me that backwards compatibly is the key to > determining maturity? > I disagree completely. Just like moving from gcc 3.2 to 3.4.. > regressions happen. Hence the reason for the developer to stay on top > of the changes in the frameworks, tools and languages they use for a > living. Hell look at Java 1.4 to the current 6.x (which if you follow > their previous versioning it would be 1.6)changes most of the user > exposed API''s have been left alone but there are plenty of examples of > changes that would cause you to experience pain deploying your 1.4 app > on any 6.0 jre. > > This is one of the reasons testing has become so popular, not just in > our community but in most other development communities. > > And I calling rails mature in comparison to .net mvc seems pretty rock > solid to me. > >> The Rails API and docs change constantly and are often out of sync. >> Last month for example, api.rubyonrails.com was showing new 2.3 >> features before 2.3 was even released. How''d you like to be a new guy >> scratching his head over grouped_options_for_select being in the docs >> but not in the framework? I could much more easily accept the reverse >> case. > > Agreed. > >> And what about the gem servers that are constantly up and down? How >> can newcomers have any faith in Rail''s maturity when you can''t even >> install it sometimes? > > Rubyforge happens to be the standard gem repo right now, and > installing rails through gem is the de-facto standard method but > hardly the only way. > >> >> And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast >> that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now. I >> have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day. > > Hmm and I seem to have an 8 year old ruby book that is still just as > valid as it is now, this is about Rails not Ruby. Try opening the > Catalyst book from packt and tell me things won''t be different today. > This is an issue with computer books that''s been around forever. > >> I love working in Rails, it''s the fastest way I know of to build a >> website, but mature is the last thing I''d ever say about it. I have >> absolutely no faith in the API remaining the same from even a .1 to a >> .2 release, much less 2.x to 3.0. If you can''t count on the >> user-level API being stable how can you even begin to say it''s mature? > > I guess we have different views about maturity. Oh well. > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Perhaps you need to really take on what they''re saying. It''s not a fight as I see it, unless you make it one. And... Why fight? I used to train in a martial art, and people would often train with me with the attitude that they''re ''way'' of doing something was better. The only whole way to address their issues is to embrace them and try out their way! Try it on honestly and that will show you why you use your way, and maybe even learn their point of view!! :) Example: I prefer mac os/x and apple gear. I regularly use pc''s at work and once years ago when I was a graphic designer, I even switched to pc for a few years at the advice of someone. It was good advice, and he was right to suggest it on the surface, but I got so sick of all the little things missing that I bought a mac again. I really knew pc''s quite well - I could do EVERYTHING via keyboard shortcuts. But I still preferred the mac because of several key reasons. They were quality of attention to detail of finish on everything, what they left OUT of their interfaces, and the Porsche feeling - the things they make are often just so beautiful, they make me happy :) My point is, though, without going through the experience of trying other suggestions, you can''t really know if your choice is a valid and informed one, if that''s important to you. If you do go through the experience, I guarantee you''ll learn a lot and also that your appreciation of whichever tool you choose will increase magnitudes. Be careful, though, of fostering us vs them attitudes. This won''t make you happy. The creator of ruby''s goal was to make programming enjoyable :) don''t forget that not everyone loves sunshine, though, and do you know what? That''s valid!!! Love, Julian Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/ Learn rails: http://sensei.zenunit.com/ On 04/04/2009, at 6:04 AM, Chris Johnson <chris-dAXfyQEfk+W1Z/+hSey0Gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hello All, > > I have been put in a tough situation at work. I have been > developing rails applications for the past 2 years and thoroughly > enjoy what I am doing. However it has been bestowed upon me to give > an objective summary leading to the benefits of rails versus using > Microsoft''s MVC capabilities. > > I have been going back and forth with colleges on this and everyone > has a response to how "their" technology is better. I am looking > for some other ideas / reasons why you people in the community like > rails as a way to gather more evidence of to why we should use rails > in an "enterprise" (the buzz word everyone around here uses) > environment. > > Any opinions are greatly welcomed. I love rails and dont want to go > down with out a fight but need some good ammo and am looking for the > community for advice as a way to answer the question "Why is Rails > better"? > > > Thanks, > > -Chris > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Oh, I just have to also add that you must be fully prepared to ''lose'' to address this in a way that you will learn from. That is, if this is what you want. :) Have fun! Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/ Learn rails: http://sensei.zenunit.com/ On 04/04/2009, at 6:04 AM, Chris Johnson <chris-dAXfyQEfk+W1Z/+hSey0Gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hello All, > > I have been put in a tough situation at work. I have been > developing rails applications for the past 2 years and thoroughly > enjoy what I am doing. However it has been bestowed upon me to give > an objective summary leading to the benefits of rails versus using > Microsoft''s MVC capabilities. > > I have been going back and forth with colleges on this and everyone > has a response to how "their" technology is better. I am looking > for some other ideas / reasons why you people in the community like > rails as a way to gather more evidence of to why we should use rails > in an "enterprise" (the buzz word everyone around here uses) > environment. > > Any opinions are greatly welcomed. I love rails and dont want to go > down with out a fight but need some good ammo and am looking for the > community for advice as a way to answer the question "Why is Rails > better"? > > > Thanks, > > -Chris > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Fidel Viegas <fidel.viegas-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I certainly agree with a few of your points, but you can''t compare a > language with a framework.Alright then. Let me rephrase it. I''ve got .net book that are 4 and 6 years old that I still reference to this day. I''ve got a Java Swing book that''s ancient that''s still very relevant today. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges, there you go.> Ruby, the language, hasn''t changed that > much from 1.8.x to 1.9.x.Bullshit. It''s changed immensely. Ruby 1.9 has fibers now, there are native threads, there is unicode in fast C, no longer in Ruby. There are actually so many new features in 1.9 people are pissed that it''s not named 2.0. I''ve been playing with all sorts of new 1.9 features the past few weeks. Sadly one of them is not a working MySQL gem, but it''ll catch up at some point I''m sure. Do you follow Linux Kernel development at all? It''s a cardinal sin to even attempt to change a userland API. Behind the API things evolve immensely, but the API itself, that we as developers build software against, never, ever changes. But then on the rare occasion that it does change, you can bet your ass the version number will move by a lot more than .1. When the Rails API begins to remain unchanged for even a few releases in a row, maybe then you can start calling it things like "mature". -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Yeah look at Photoshop - their Interface changes all the time. That''s part of it. I like merb''s method of keeping versioned documentation. That''s nice. Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/ Learn rails: http://sensei.zenunit.com/ On 04/04/2009, at 9:40 AM, Lionel Bouton <lionel-subscription-WTamNBQcZIx7tPAFqOLdPg@public.gmane.org > wrote:> > Greg Donald a écrit, le 04/04/2009 12:03 AM : >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Mark Turner <mark-q0lyiXvcrHzR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >>> Rails is a mature framework >>> >> >> No, it''s not. >> >> How can you say something like that after everything that''s changed >> from 2.2 -> 2.3 ? Or knowing what''s likely to change with 3.0 when >> more of Merb gets merged in? >> > > Nobody forces anybody to upgrade. I''ve Rails 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 > applications running and only upgraded them when it made sense to do > so > (subjective estimate of long term cost of waiting for another release > before upgrading > cost of upgrading now). > Rails 2.1 is mature enough to me right now, I only used 2.2 and 2.3 > because they''ll probably be supported longer. > >> When I read things like "middleware layers being completely >> rewritten" >> it leads me to question why they were written so incorrectly to start >> with that they needed to be completely rewritten. When I read things >> like "memory sessions have been removed" I gotta wonder who thought >> they were a good idea to start with? Newsflash: some of use were >> using those. (Yes I''m aware of how to get them back using the >> plugin, >> that''s not the point.) If you''re gonna put something in there, >> have a >> good reason for putting it in there, have a reason so good that you >> won''t later find an opposing reason strong enough to remove it. >> > > Shit happens :-) Designing an application is hard enough, designing a > framework to support a variety of applications is harder. > >> The Rails API and docs change constantly and are often out of sync. >> Last month for example, api.rubyonrails.com > > Why use it ? For what I know this has always been the edge > documentation. When I want documentation for my Rails versions I use > http://localhost:8808. > >> was showing new 2.3 >> features before 2.3 was even released. How''d you like to be a new >> guy >> scratching his head over grouped_options_for_select being in the docs >> but not in the framework? I could much more easily accept the >> reverse >> case. >> >> And what about the gem servers that are constantly up and down? How >> can newcomers have any faith in Rail''s maturity when you can''t even >> install it sometimes? >> > > Nothing to do with the framework itself. Only a problem if you don''t > have access to packaged versions of these gems (I''m not familiar with > these problems : Gentoo mirrors work well enough). > >> And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast >> that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now. > > Only if you don''t install the Rails version the book was written for > (why would you install another as a beginner ?). Anyway I''m not the > best > person to answer that: I learn from blog posts, documentation and > source > code, not books anymore. > >> I >> have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day. >> > > Hum, I''m not doing a MVC web app in Perl even with Catalyst. Note that > you are comparing apple with oranges, the Pickaxe is very usable right > now. These books will be thrown away when people want to learn Perl6, > doest it make Perl5 immature? I''d say Perl5 is not the brightest > language around, but it *is* mature. > >> I love working in Rails, it''s the fastest way I know of to build a >> website, but mature is the last thing I''d ever say about it. I have >> absolutely no faith in the API remaining the same from even a .1 to a >> .2 release, much less 2.x to 3.0. > > I agree, but: > - why upgrade if you don''t need to ? > - if you need to, it''s not that hard to upgrade once you are coding > Rails apps for your living (why would you upgrade if you don''t ?): > deprecated methods should be right in front of your eyes when you run > your tests/specs. > > Lionel > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Lol isn''t that a good thing? Once you learn rails 2.1, 2.3 is not that much of a jump! :) Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/ Learn rails: http://sensei.zenunit.com/ On 04/04/2009, at 11:13 AM, Tim <mcintyre.tim-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> >> And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast >> that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now. I >> have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day. > > Wow yours last 6 months! I ordered the latest AWD with Rails book > sometime around last October and it was supposed shipped in December. > Just got it last week and it''s already out of date because it doesn''t > cover all the great new features in 2.3 not to mention what''s coming > in 3.0 here very shortly. Not that it''s still not useful but UGH! > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
2009/4/3 Julian Leviston <julian-AfxEtdRqmE/tt0EhB6fy4g@public.gmane.org>:> Yeah look at Photoshop - their Interface changes all the time. That''s > part of it. I like merb''s method of keeping versioned documentation. > That''s nice.I love PHP''s way of telling me when a function first appeared in the API, for example: http://us.php.net/manual/en/function.strstr.php And then further down the page there is the individual changelog for the life of this particular function in the API. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
These aren''t muually exclusive. Perhaps we could use both Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/ Learn rails: http://sensei.zenunit.com/ On 04/04/2009, at 1:08 PM, Greg Donald <gdonald-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > 2009/4/3 Julian Leviston <julian-AfxEtdRqmE/tt0EhB6fy4g@public.gmane.org>: >> Yeah look at Photoshop - their Interface changes all the time. That''s >> part of it. I like merb''s method of keeping versioned documentation. >> That''s nice. > > I love PHP''s way of telling me when a function first appeared in the > API, for example: > > http://us.php.net/manual/en/function.strstr.php > > And then further down the page there is the individual changelog for > the life of this particular function in the API. > > > -- > Greg Donald > http://destiney.com/ > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Greg Donald <gdonald-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:>> Ruby, the language, hasn''t changed that >> much from 1.8.x to 1.9.x. > > Bullshit. It''s changed immensely. Ruby 1.9 has fibers now, there are > native threads, there is unicode in fast C, no longer in Ruby. There > are actually so many new features in 1.9 people are pissed that it''s > not named 2.0.Well I count three majour features: 1) Performance 2) Threads/Fiber 3) Encoding/Unicode and I can get all of those if I use the JRuby interpreter which is compatible with Ruby 1.8.6. There are, obviously, a few language improvements, but nothing I would consider major changes. The features above are things I think should be there right from the start. Java had them there right from the beginning.> I''ve been playing with all sorts of new 1.9 features > the past few weeks. Sadly one of them is not a working MySQL gem, but > it''ll catch up at some point I''m sure. >In other words: it isn''t mature enough, because there are still a lot of gems that don''t work with it.> Do you follow Linux Kernel development at all? It''s a cardinal sin to > even attempt to change a userland API. Behind the API things evolve > immensely, but the API itself, that we as developers build software > against, never, ever changes. But then on the rare occasion that it > does change, you can bet your ass the version number will move by a > lot more than .1. >Well, I wouldn''t really compare a kernel with a framework like Rails. The way I see it: the rails framework is in itself a piece of software being developed in an agile fashion, and as we know all softwares developed that way do change, and there are some things that will be removed because they don''t actually make sense.. Up until now, the Rails development team have been delivering versions which are quite stable and mature enough for you to develop a stable piece of software.> When the Rails API begins to remain unchanged for even a few releases > in a row, maybe then you can start calling it things like "mature".Well, your concept of "mature" is quite different from mine. I think the versions delivered are quite mature. The API, on the other hand, may not be as mature, but we should expect some maturity with the merge with Merb. Fidel. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I think the strongest plus is the connection with the opensource community. It''s not just about getting software for free - some people would even make the (occasionally correct) arguement that it''s worth what you paid for it... 1) The opensource gets so many more competent eyes on the code that problems (and usually their solutions as well) are found very quickly. 2) In addition, with open source developers are free to explore their own variants. These often lead to new extensions of the product that might not have surfaced from the original developers. 3) Finally, the opensource community provides an invaluable informed community - we don''t just read the books, we read the code. We are able to separate the party line answer from the truth. Now if we could only get some social behavior patterns that aren''t so scary... On Apr 3, 12:59 pm, Mark Turner <m...-q0lyiXvcrHzR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Apr 3, 3:03 pm, Greg Donald <gdon...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Mark Turner <m...-q0lyiXvcrHzR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Rails is a mature framework > > > No, it''s not. > > This conversation will go way out of Chris''s question''s. Sorry Chris. > > > > > How can you say something like that after everything that''s changed > > from 2.2 -> 2.3 ? Or knowing what''s likely to change with 3.0 when > > more of Merb gets merged in? > > > When I read things like "middleware layers being completely rewritten" > > it leads me to question why they were written so incorrectly to start > > with that they needed to be completely rewritten. When I read things > > like "memory sessions have been removed" I gotta wonder who thought > > they were a good idea to start with? Newsflash: some of use were > > using those. (Yes I''m aware of how to get them back using the plugin, > > that''s not the point.) If you''re gonna put something in there, have a > > good reason for putting it in there, have a reason so good that you > > won''t later find an opposing reason strong enough to remove it. > > You''re trying to tell me that backwards compatibly is the key to > determining maturity? > I disagree completely. Just like moving from gcc 3.2 to 3.4.. > regressions happen. Hence the reason for the developer to stay on top > of the changes in the frameworks, tools and languages they use for a > living. Hell look at Java 1.4 to the current 6.x (which if you follow > their previous versioning it would be 1.6)changes most of the user > exposed API''s have been left alone but there are plenty of examples of > changes that would cause you to experience pain deploying your 1.4 app > on any 6.0 jre. > > This is one of the reasons testing has become so popular, not just in > our community but in most other development communities. > > And I calling rails mature in comparison to .net mvc seems pretty rock > solid to me. > > > The Rails API and docs change constantly and are often out of sync. > > Last month for example, api.rubyonrails.com was showing new 2.3 > > features before 2.3 was even released. How''d you like to be a new guy > > scratching his head over grouped_options_for_select being in the docs > > but not in the framework? I could much more easily accept the reverse > > case. > > Agreed. > > > And what about the gem servers that are constantly up and down? How > > can newcomers have any faith in Rail''s maturity when you can''t even > > install it sometimes? > > Rubyforge happens to be the standard gem repo right now, and > installing rails through gem is the de-facto standard method but > hardly the only way. > > > > > And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast > > that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now. I > > have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day. > > Hmm and I seem to have an 8 year old ruby book that is still just as > valid as it is now, this is about Rails not Ruby. Try opening the > Catalyst book from packt and tell me things won''t be different today. > This is an issue with computer books that''s been around forever. > > > I love working in Rails, it''s the fastest way I know of to build a > > website, but mature is the last thing I''d ever say about it. I have > > absolutely no faith in the API remaining the same from even a .1 to a > > .2 release, much less 2.x to 3.0. If you can''t count on the > > user-level API being stable how can you even begin to say it''s mature? > > I guess we have different views about maturity. Oh well.--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I want to thank everyone for their comments, they are very useful and will help me state my point. I did take the time last weekend to sit in on a demonstration of building an asp.net mvc application. Overall I was impressed with Microsoft pointing it''s self in the right direction of web development. With that said I still think Microsoft has a long way to travel to catch up with Rails (especally because it is a moving target), plus it needs to be accepted by the masses for them to keep it around. I am seeing interest in it from the Microsoft developer community but many of them when they hear there is no viewstate they are immediately turned off. I see this as a win because the viewstate I.M.O. is not needed. Again this discussion has helped me clarify my own thoughts and back them. The number of responses also show the involvement of the community to help one another not just with code but situations we will run into in the real world. Thanks, -Chris On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Chris Johnson <chris-dAXfyQEfk+W1Z/+hSey0Gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hello All, > > I have been put in a tough situation at work. I have been developing rails > applications for the past 2 years and thoroughly enjoy what I am doing. > However it has been bestowed upon me to give an objective summary leading to > the benefits of rails versus using Microsoft''s MVC capabilities. > > I have been going back and forth with colleges on this and everyone has a > response to how "their" technology is better. I am looking for some other > ideas / reasons why you people in the community like rails as a way to > gather more evidence of to why we should use rails in an "enterprise" (the > buzz word everyone around here uses) environment. > > Any opinions are greatly welcomed. I love rails and dont want to go down > with out a fight but need some good ammo and am looking for the community > for advice as a way to answer the question "Why is Rails better"? > > > Thanks, > > -Chris >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---