Rails - Aug 2009 - I've decided to use Rails... (I hope I made the right decision).

I''ve read a ton of comparisons that compare one framework to another,
and one language to another.  There''s so much conflicting advice out
there that it''s hard to know what is best.  Did I make the right
choice choosing Rails for my first web project?  I guess we''ll see.

The only reason why I''m hesitant is that a lot of the big name sites
use php (facebook, wordpress, joomla, etc).  At some point I''d like to
write plugins and extensions for them and integrate with their API''s
with my site, will Rails will do the trick?

Also, I looked into django, the framework for python.  I was sorta
intrigued by python because that''s what google uses and I believe
yahoo as well.  However, there is 0.00% chance of my little ol'' web
app ever reaching their seismic proportions, but from what I''ve read
django is quite comparable to ruby and quite a bit faster.  I guess
that''s the only reason why I''m still hesitant about choosing
Rails.
From what I''ve gathered is that Rails lags in speed and performance.

So, why did I choose rails?  It seems to be the easiest to code it in
and it''s very well documented.  I hope that doesn''t come back
to bite
me ''cause I''d rather put in extra work upfront to ensure the
longevity
of my site and the least amount of headaches in the future.  So the
next few months all I''ll be doing is eating, drinking, breathing
Rails, and I just wanted to say hi and sorta introduce myself to the
community.  Thanks guys for all the documentation already out there
and all the support you guys provide.

AlwaysCharging wrote:
> I''ve read a ton of comparisons that compare one framework to
another,
> and one language to another.  There''s so much conflicting advice
out
> there that it''s hard to know what is best.  Did I make the right
> choice choosing Rails for my first web project?  I guess we''ll
see.
You probably did, although I''ve heard the assertion made that Rails may
not be the easiest thing for someone completely new to Web development.
> 
> The only reason why I''m hesitant is that a lot of the big name
sites
> use php (facebook, wordpress, joomla, etc).  At some point I''d
like to
> write plugins and extensions for them and integrate with their
API''s
> with my site, will Rails will do the trick?
Facebook has a public REST API that can be called from any language. 
There''s even a Facebooker gem to make it easier to do that from Rails.
However, whereas Facebook is an application with a public API, WordPress 
and Joomla are frameworks (just like Rails is).  Both are written in 
PHP.  If you want to develop for them, you''ll have to work with PHP. 
However, if you just want to provide a Web service for them to consume, 
that can be in any language you like.
> 
> Also, I looked into django, the framework for python.  I was sorta
> intrigued by python because that''s what google uses and I believe
> yahoo as well.  However, there is 0.00% chance of my little ol''
web
> app ever reaching their seismic proportions, but from what I''ve
read
> django is quite comparable to ruby and quite a bit faster.  
No.  Django is comparable to *Rails*.  Python is comparable to Ruby.

I''ve never heard the claim that Django is faster than Rails.  Your 
source?

> I guess
> that''s the only reason why I''m still hesitant about
choosing Rails.
> From what I''ve gathered is that Rails lags in speed and
performance.
Maybe.  Maybe not.
> 
> So, why did I choose rails?  It seems to be the easiest to code it in
> and it''s very well documented.  I hope that doesn''t come
back to bite
> me ''cause I''d rather put in extra work upfront to ensure
the longevity
> of my site and the least amount of headaches in the future.  
Then please, do everything -- *everything!* -- test-first.  That''s the 
single biggest step you can take to ensure long-term maintainability.

> So the
> next few months all I''ll be doing is eating, drinking, breathing
> Rails, and I just wanted to say hi and sorta introduce myself to the
> community.  Thanks guys for all the documentation already out there
> and all the support you guys provide.
Welcome!  Good luck as you learn.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

You may have issues with RoR on your way but you''ll never ever regret
taking it up.
And believe me, its not just the language or the framework. Its the
community.

one up on test-first.

good luck!

On Aug 11, 9:21 am, Marnen Laibow-Koser <rails-mailing-l...@andreas-
s.net> wrote:
> AlwaysCharging wrote:
> > I''ve read a ton of comparisons that compare one framework to
another,
> > and one language to another.  There''s so much conflicting
advice out
> > there that it''s hard to know what is best.  Did I make the
right
> > choice choosing Rails for my first web project?  I guess
we''ll see.
>
> You probably did, although I''ve heard the assertion made that
Rails may
> not be the easiest thing for someone completely new to Web development.
>
>
>
> > The only reason why I''m hesitant is that a lot of the big
name sites
> > use php (facebook, wordpress, joomla, etc).  At some point
I''d like to
> > write plugins and extensions for them and integrate with their
API''s
> > with my site, will Rails will do the trick?
>
> Facebook has a public REST API that can be called from any language.
> There''s even a Facebooker gem to make it easier to do that from
Rails.
> However, whereas Facebook is an application with a public API, WordPress
> and Joomla are frameworks (just like Rails is).  Both are written in
> PHP.  If you want to develop for them, you''ll have to work with
PHP.
> However, if you just want to provide a Web service for them to consume,
> that can be in any language you like.
>
>
>
> > Also, I looked into django, the framework for python.  I was sorta
> > intrigued by python because that''s what google uses and I
believe
> > yahoo as well.  However, there is 0.00% chance of my little
ol'' web
> > app ever reaching their seismic proportions, but from what
I''ve read
> > django is quite comparable to ruby and quite a bit faster.  
>
> No.  Django is comparable to *Rails*.  Python is comparable to Ruby.
>
> I''ve never heard the claim that Django is faster than Rails.  Your
> source?
>
> > I guess
> > that''s the only reason why I''m still hesitant about
choosing Rails.
> > From what I''ve gathered is that Rails lags in speed and
performance.
>
> Maybe.  Maybe not.
>
>
>
> > So, why did I choose rails?  It seems to be the easiest to code it in
> > and it''s very well documented.  I hope that doesn''t
come back to bite
> > me ''cause I''d rather put in extra work upfront to
ensure the longevity
> > of my site and the least amount of headaches in the future.  
>
> Then please, do everything -- *everything!* -- test-first.  That''s
the
> single biggest step you can take to ensure long-term maintainability.
>
> > So the
> > next few months all I''ll be doing is eating, drinking,
breathing
> > Rails, and I just wanted to say hi and sorta introduce myself to the
> > community.  Thanks guys for all the documentation already out there
> > and all the support you guys provide.
>
> Welcome!  Good luck as you learn.
>
> Best,
> --
> Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org
> mar...-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On Aug 10, 11:55 pm, AlwaysCharging
<goodg...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> I''ve read a ton of comparisons that compare one framework to
another,
> and one language to another.  There''s so much conflicting advice
out
> there that it''s hard to know what is best.  Did I make the right
> choice choosing Rails for my first web project?  I guess we''ll
see.
>
> The only reason why I''m hesitant is that a lot of the big name
sites
> use php (facebook, wordpress, joomla, etc).  At some point I''d
like to
> write plugins and extensions for them and integrate with their
API''s
> with my site, will Rails will do the trick?
No worries on the API front; as others have noted, writing plugins may
be harder. But given some of the amazingly sneaky things that have
been done in Ruby (case in point -
http://github.com/tenderlove/phuby/tree/master
: a PHP runtime in Ruby), anything''s possible...
>
> Also, I looked into django, the framework for python.  I was sorta
> intrigued by python because that''s what google uses and I believe
> yahoo as well.  However, there is 0.00% chance of my little ol''
web
> app ever reaching their seismic proportions, but from what I''ve
read
> django is quite comparable to ruby and quite a bit faster.  I guess
> that''s the only reason why I''m still hesitant about
choosing Rails.
> From what I''ve gathered is that Rails lags in speed and
performance.
There''s a lot of discussion about who''s faster; what gets lost
is that
while there may be some raw differences in speed, the application code
makes far more difference. Bad programmers can write slow apps in ANY
language... Also, keep performance pretty much out of your thoughts
when you''re starting out - obviously, don''t do *clearly* bad
things
(like doing a find(:all) and then searching the results...), but
optimization comes later.

Personally, I''ve always found Python harder to read, but that may just
be years of C/C++/Perl bias.
> So, why did I choose rails?  It seems to be the easiest to code it in
> and it''s very well documented.  I hope that doesn''t come
back to bite
> me ''cause I''d rather put in extra work upfront to ensure
the longevity
> of my site and the least amount of headaches in the future.  So the
> next few months all I''ll be doing is eating, drinking, breathing
> Rails, and I just wanted to say hi and sorta introduce myself to the
> community.  Thanks guys for all the documentation already out there
> and all the support you guys provide.
Well, it''s well-documented right up until you hit the bits that
aren''t. :)

As far as general advice, here''s some stray ideas:

- as others on this thread have noted, test. Test test test. I''m not
entirely partial to the "test absolutely everything" school, (example:
checking that a plain belongs_to association works) but any time
you''re doing something out of the ordinary in a model, test. At the
very least, write enough functional tests to smoke-test your
controllers and views. And any time you find yourself typing the same
thing into a form to see what happens, write a test - it''s quicker,
and serves to check that things are still working.

- learn source control. Most here favor Git, and most Rails plugins
are hosted on Github now. Even if you''re working by yourself, source
control is useful (as you''ll discover the first time you
''rm'' a file
that you wanted to keep...)

- the design of Rails is focused on making doing ''the right
thing''
easy. If you find yourself fighting against the framework and writing
lots of messy code to work around it, take a step back and look at
what you''re doing. Nine (or more) times out of ten, there''s a
more
straightforward way to do it. Of course, that one time, it''s a bug in
Rails...

- read lots of code. Understanding the Rails source, for instance,
will teach you an amazing amount about good Ruby coding. I''d
recommend, however, starting with something *other* than ActiveRecord
- there''s some remarkable stuff there, but the metaprogramming /
method generation stuff is tough going at first.

- get comfortable with ruby_debug. This can help you starting out, as
you can drop a ''debugger'' statement almost anywhere (even in
views!)
and look at the context your code is executing in.

Hope this is helpful - welcome to the community!

--Matt Jones

Welcome to the cult. Older sites use older technology because - until 2 years 
ago - Rails was a fringe player using an obscure language. Rails now leads the 
adoption rate in new projects because it showcase what a fine language Ruby is.

Your site will easily plug into other sites'' APIs because they always
use some
interoperable format, such as XML.

AlwaysCharging wrote:
> So, why did I choose rails?  It seems to be the easiest to code it in
> and it''s very well documented.  I hope that doesn''t come
back to bite
> me ''cause I''d rather put in extra work upfront to ensure
the longevity
> of my site and the least amount of headaches in the future.
Then write lots of unit tests - preferably via Test-Driven Development. That way
you can add new features, for a long time, without breaking existing features.

-- 
   Phlip

On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:21 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
>> Also, I looked into django, the framework for python.  I was sorta
>> intrigued by python because that''s what google uses and I
believe
>> yahoo as well.  However, there is 0.00% chance of my little
ol'' web
>> app ever reaching their seismic proportions, but from what
I''ve read
>> django is quite comparable to ruby and quite a bit faster.
>
> No.  Django is comparable to *Rails*.  Python is comparable to Ruby.
>
> I''ve never heard the claim that Django is faster than Rails.  Your
> source?
Python is faster than Ruby, it has a faster GC and generically a  
faster interpreter.
There''s no need of any source for such claim, it''s basically 8
or 9
years that the Python interpreter produces bytecode while the MRI  
builds a syntax tree and evaluates it.
This is also the reason why YARV is going to be 3x faster than the  
actual implementation.
That''s the theory, and of course nobody cares because on the web  
before looking at the speed of the interpreter we should look at real  
bottlenecks, namely the network and the database (I have here a case  
where db writes are almost the same number of db reads - this is  
performance wise what I call a "pain in the ass", and ruby is  
definitely not a part of it).
Of course having a faster interpreter is going to be sweet, but it''s  
not something to worry about. Ruby is "fast enough" for 99% of cases.

   ngw

On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:55 AM, AlwaysCharging wrote:
>
> I''ve read a ton of comparisons that compare one framework to
another,
> and one language to another.  There''s so much conflicting advice
out
> there that it''s hard to know what is best.  Did I make the right
> choice choosing Rails for my first web project?  I guess we''ll
see.
Depends on the project.
> The only reason why I''m hesitant is that a lot of the big name
sites
> use php (facebook, wordpress, joomla, etc).  At some point I''d
like to
> write plugins and extensions for them and integrate with their
API''s
> with my site, will Rails will do the trick?
Of course.
> Also, I looked into django, the framework for python.  I was sorta
> intrigued by python because that''s what google uses and I believe
> yahoo as well.  However, there is 0.00% chance of my little ol''
web
> app ever reaching their seismic proportions, but from what I''ve
read
> django is quite comparable to ruby and quite a bit faster.  I guess
> that''s the only reason why I''m still hesitant about
choosing Rails.
> From what I''ve gathered is that Rails lags in speed and
performance.
I doubt that Google uses Django. I know for sure that their crawlers  
and many other things (the faq system, google groups, blogger) are  
written in Python, which is to be clear a wonderful language I used  
for years.
And yes, probably Django is faster than Rails, because the Python  
interpreter is faster than the Ruby one.
And Java is way faster than Python, with C++ being faster than both.
Honestly on the web nobody should care who''s faster of who,
it''s
really a non-problem, because at some time, when you really need  
speed, the interpreter has to get out the equation.
If I can give you a suggestion, worry about something when you  
actually have that problem, not before. You chose a technology that  
will make you productive and release your product quite fast.
Rails doesn''t lag in speed and performance, if you''re able to
use it.
> So, why did I choose rails?  It seems to be the easiest to code it in
> and it''s very well documented.  I hope that doesn''t come
back to bite
> me ''cause I''d rather put in extra work upfront to ensure
the longevity
> of my site and the least amount of headaches in the future.  So the
> next few months all I''ll be doing is eating, drinking, breathing
> Rails, and I just wanted to say hi and sorta introduce myself to the
> community.  Thanks guys for all the documentation already out there
> and all the support you guys provide.
Welcome.

   ngw

Nicholas Wieland wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:21 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> 
>>> Also, I looked into django, the framework for python.  I was sorta
>>> intrigued by python because that''s what google uses and I
believe
>>> yahoo as well.  However, there is 0.00% chance of my little
ol'' web
>>> app ever reaching their seismic proportions, but from what
I''ve read
>>> django is quite comparable to ruby and quite a bit faster.
>>
>> No.  Django is comparable to *Rails*.  Python is comparable to Ruby.
>>
>> I''ve never heard the claim that Django is faster than Rails. 
Your
>> source?
> 
> Python is faster than Ruby, it has a faster GC and generically a
> faster interpreter.
Whether that''s true or not, it does not directly address the
OP''s claim,
which had to do with Django vs. Rails, not Python vs. Ruby.

Now, if the Python interpreter is significantly faster than the Ruby 
interpreter, that certainly would help Django be faster than Rails.  But 
as you yourself pointed out, there might well be bottlenecks elsewhere, 
so that fact alone is not sufficient.

[...]
> Of course having a faster interpreter is going to be sweet, but
it''s
> not something to worry about. Ruby is "fast enough" for 99% of
cases.
Agreed.  And there''s always JRuby for the other 1%...
> 
>    ngw
Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

>> app ever reaching their seismic proportions, but from what
I''ve read
>> django is quite comparable to ruby and quite a bit faster.
>No.  Django is comparable to *Rails*.  Python is comparable to Ruby.
That''s what I meant, just a little bit of a typo in not finishing it
with "on rails."

>Agreed.  And there''s always JRuby for the other 1%...
How hard would it be to migrate a relatively large site from ruby to
JRuby?
Rails could still be used with JRuby correct?

> If I can give you a suggestion, worry about something when you  
> actually have that problem, not before.
I don''t know if I really agree with this.  I''d rather head off
a
problem far in advance of it ever becoming one, which is why I didn''t
want to doom myself at the start.  However, I do agree that it may be
silly to worry about a (negligible?) speed improvement over an app
that I haven''t even started yet.  I just wanted to make the right
decision from the start so that I have to never look back and would
never have to do a complete code rewrite due to the language.


And also I agree with your comments about bottlenecks.  I think more
of a site''s performance relies on database optimization more than the
language itself.  However, I could be wrong.

> > I''ve read a ton of comparisons that compare one framework to
another,
> > and one language to another.  There''s so much conflicting
advice out
> > there that it''s hard to know what is best.  Did I make the
right
> > choice choosing Rails for my first web project?  I guess
we''ll see.
>
> Depends on the project.
I guess what''s solidifying my choice for Rails is that it was pulled
from a far more collaborative site than Django (which was born from a
newspaper site).  Although I''m sure both of their underlying languages
are capable of far more than that, I fear that I''m reduced to using to
a framework due to my current level expertise (which is none at the
moment).

> Welcome.
>
>    ngw
Thank you!
and thanks to everyone else that''s chimed in on this thread.

AlwaysCharging wrote:
[...]
> 
>>Agreed.  And there''s always JRuby for the other 1%...
> 
> How hard would it be to migrate a relatively large site from ruby to
> JRuby?
From what I understand, not hard at all.  JRuby acts basically the same 
way as any other Ruby interpreter.
> Rails could still be used with JRuby correct?
Yes.  So can anything else that works in MRI.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

AlwaysCharging wrote:
>> If I can give you a suggestion, worry about something when you �
>> actually have that problem, not before.
> 
> I don''t know if I really agree with this.  I''d rather
head off a
> problem far in advance of it ever becoming one, which is why I
didn''t
> want to doom myself at the start.  
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." --Donald Knuth

It makes sense to pick a framework that can grow with you, but (except 
for certain simple cases) your performance bottlenecks may not be where 
you expect.  Therefore, if you optimize prematurely, you may be 
optimizing for the wrong thing.
> However, I do agree that it may be
> silly to worry about a (negligible?) speed improvement over an app
> that I haven''t even started yet.  I just wanted to make the right
> decision from the start so that I have to never look back and would
> never have to do a complete code rewrite due to the language.
Your code should always be well enough tested and easy enough to 
refactor that doing a complete rewrite (if, God forbid, you ever had to) 
should be relatively easy.
> 
> 
> And also I agree with your comments about bottlenecks.  I think more
> of a site''s performance relies on database optimization more than
the
> language itself.  However, I could be wrong.
Depends on the site.

[...]
> I guess what''s solidifying my choice for Rails is that it was
pulled
> from a far more collaborative site than Django (which was born from a
> newspaper site).  Although I''m sure both of their underlying
languages
> are capable of far more than that, I fear that I''m reduced to
using to
> a framework due to my current level expertise (which is none at the
> moment).
It''s not a question of being "reduced" to using a framework. 
It''s much
easier and more maintainable to code an application with a framework 
than without one.  Please don''t get the idea that general-purpose 
frameworks like Rails are only for novice programmers.
> 
> 
>> Welcome.
>>
>> � �ngw
> 
> Thank you!
> and thanks to everyone else that''s chimed in on this thread.
Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

2009/8/14 AlwaysCharging
<goodgets-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:
>
>> If I can give you a suggestion, worry about something when you
>> actually have that problem, not before.
>
> I don''t know if I really agree with this.  I''d rather
head off a
> problem far in advance of it ever becoming one, which is why I
didn''t
> want to doom myself at the start.  However, I do agree that it may be
> silly to worry about a (negligible?) speed improvement over an app
> that I haven''t even started yet.  I just wanted to make the right
> decision from the start so that I have to never look back and would
> never have to do a complete code rewrite due to the language.
>
>
> And also I agree with your comments about bottlenecks.  I think more
> of a site''s performance relies on database optimization more than
the
> language itself.  However, I could be wrong.
>
>
>> > I''ve read a ton of comparisons that compare one framework
to another,
>> > and one language to another.  There''s so much conflicting
advice out
>> > there that it''s hard to know what is best.  Did I make
the right
>> > choice choosing Rails for my first web project?  I guess
we''ll see.
>>
>> Depends on the project.
>
> I guess what''s solidifying my choice for Rails is that it was
pulled
> from a far more collaborative site than Django (which was born from a
> newspaper site).  Although I''m sure both of their underlying
languages
> are capable of far more than that, I fear that I''m reduced to
using to
> a framework due to my current level expertise (which is none at the
> moment).
You could also say that you are reduced to using a language like Ruby
because your current level of expertise in assembly language is not
sufficient to allow you to program in that.  Using a framework allows
you to build on code written by others to achieve what you want to
achieve without re-inventing the wheel.  Even if you have the
expertise to re-invent the wheel there is no point doing it.

Colin
>
>
>> Welcome.
>>
>>    ngw
>
> Thank you!
> and thanks to everyone else that''s chimed in on this thread.
> >
>

On Aug 11, 11:20 am, Phlip
<phlip2...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Welcome to the cult. Older sites use older technology because - until 2
years
> ago - Rails was a fringe player using an obscure language. Rails now leads
the
> adoption rate in new projects because it showcase what a fine language Ruby
is.
I hadn''t heard this... interesting. Do you have a source for this
information?