Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ruby Clouds: Engine Yard Vs. Heroku

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the silverest-lining dept.

Programming 41

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Andrew Glover provides an in-depth comparison of Engine Yard and Heroku, two cloud-based, platform-as-a-service offerings for Ruby development. 'To put it simply, Heroku will appeal more to developers and Engine Yard will appeal to operations folks. Consequently, when evaluating the two platforms, one's choice usually comes down to what's more important: Heroku's rapid deployment via a hands-off infrastructure, or Engine Yard's total control over all aspects of application deployment, provisioning, and monitoring.'"

cancel ×

41 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great for little apps (3, Informative)

matthewmacleod (1711466) | more than 2 years ago | (#38225220)

I love Heroku's approach to offering a base tier for free. It makes it really simple of throw up a quick app at no cost (four or file commands) and it's dead easy to scale. It's expensive compared to self-hosting though (obviously) and there are some restrictions that chafe a bit now and then, but it's pretty cool!

Ruby?! (0, Troll)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38225230)

Ruby is a horrible language that is crippled without Rails. Why do people want to use Ruby?

Re:Ruby?! (5, Insightful)

matthewmacleod (1711466) | more than 2 years ago | (#38225268)

Literal nonsense - how can a language be crippled without a framework written in it? There are other web frameworks for Ruby, and it's perfectly usable as a standalone language with a nice big library. Ruby's a great scripting language, much like Python: concise, flexible and readable. The off-the-shelf interpreter can be slow, but that's improving and there are alternatives. So what's horrible about it?

Re:Ruby?! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38225386)

It's not Python for one.

Re:Ruby?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38225542)

No need to feed the obvious trolls. Anyone who uses Ruby knows what sort of tasks it's good for and what sort it isn't.

Re:Ruby?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38225592)

ive been on this site for a few seconds and i have no idea what anyone is saying...but this means your one of the more intelligent people which makes me happy knowing the world isn't getting stupid.

Re:Ruby?! (3, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38225912)

Not to mention Ruby 1.9 is statistically the same speed as Python 3 (if not just very slightly faster).

I like both so I really don't care who wins this fanboy war.

My personal preference is Ruby since I have to work with Perl most of the day and Ruby is what OO Perl should be. Also I like RubyGems for library management, not having to worry about indentation, and there are some syntactic sugar in Ruby that gives it an edge (for me at least).

I like Python while using iPython to do some quick and dirty data checks with numpy and matplotlib.

Re:Ruby?! (1)

shish (588640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38226204)

Not to mention Ruby 1.9 is statistically the same speed as Python 3 (if not just very slightly faster).

It is? Shootout [debian.org] makes it marginally faster in 2 tests, marginally slower in 5 tests, and 2-3x slower in two tests. Still close enough that speed shouldn't be a deciding factor though; if number crunching is so important that a 10% difference is important you'd be using C anyway :-P

Re:Ruby?! (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38226234)

if number crunching is so important that a 10% difference is important you'd be using Fortran anyway :-P

FTFY

Re:Ruby?! (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38226454)

LOL. You beat me to it by 9 minutes. Damn my long comments.

Re:Ruby?! (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38226350)

It is? Shootout [debian.org] makes it marginally faster in 2 tests, marginally slower in 5 tests, and 2-3x slower in two tests.

If you look a little closer in the shootout results that you linked, you will see the overall difference is a wash (basically the same speed) hence the term "statistically the same speed".

if number crunching is so important that a 10% difference is important you'd be using C anyway :-P

Actually we use intel Fortran. It's slower than C (4 times slower in the benchmark), much faster than Python and Ruby (32 times faster), and it's easier to program all those matrix manipulations without depending too much on external libraries; Not to mention the scientists around here used Fortran for decades so there you go. I'm a C/C++ guy so I do my high throughput data pushing in C which is callable in Fortran, Perl, Ruby, and Python.

I use Perl as the glue that brings all these bits of software together, and pretty much use Ruby the same way.

Re:Ruby?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226392)

Rails is a framework for building websites. Ruby is a general purpose programming language. Do you understand the difference?

Re:Ruby?! (2)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230264)

I agree with your second point, but not your first. Ruby is not a horrible language. On the other hand, I see no need to learn Ruby when I can already do everything I need in perl/php. I guess it's a simpler language though, at least from what I can tell. At least simpler than perl (not like that's a high bar). So I can see why some people would enjoy using it. Same with Python. I don't use it myself. Learned it, decided it was basically PHP only a little prettier.

look at the cost (1)

musixman (1713146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38225826)

imo buy a dedicated server with managed support. The op's will be happy because they can SSH in & developers will be happy because they can ticket the hosting company for changes. Clouds have a purpose but nothing beats a dedicated box for cost/performance (you can get a decent one for $250 now a days)

Ruby is a TURD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38225920)

Ruby is a giant stinking turd written by a bunch of clowns with little grasp of how computers work.

Don't think so? Read this:

Ruby bug 5244 [ruby-lang.org]

Yeah, Ruby completely misuses setjmp()/longjmp() throughout its code. Yet get this:

Ruby's callcc copies stack to heap, then calls setjmp(). Stack frames are restored from the copy before longjmp(). -- Shugo Maeda

You moron - read the fucking man pages for setjmp()/longjmp(). Since when is copying a stack off somewhere a sufficient condition in allowing one to arbitrarily restrictions placed on a system call?

And we're supposed to think such crap ideas don't permeate Ruby through and through?

Re:Ruby is a TURD (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226034)

Ruby is for hipsters who think they are programmers because they bought a 3000 dollar macbook pro and 4000 dollars in skinny Jeans and emo glasses to show off while sipping lattes at their "independent" coffee shop during their breaks as a barista.

Re:Ruby is a TURD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226242)

I don't know about all that. Coming from the C++/Java land, Ruby was a breath of fresh air. It seemed to me better at allowing me to express what I wanted to do in a more natural way. I've since looked at Python, and have had to do quite a bit in PHP (ugh), and neither struck me the same way. JavaScript's semantics are nice, but the syntax is unfortunately from C. So as a scripting language, Ruby is very nice. And it's a lot less ugly than Perl.

Now unless these trolls are coming from Lisp or Smalltalk, they probably don't have much more to say than referencing turds and hipsters. Yes, everyone knows that Ruby is not meant to used like C or Fortran. It's a scripting language.

Re:Ruby is a TURD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226406)

Hey fag, stop posting to Slashdot and get back to making my latte. Oh and I heard that Lucky Brand is having a skinny Jeans sale so you and the other baristas should hit up the joint tonight. And make sure to tell everyone about how you're a ruby "programmer".

Re:Ruby is a TURD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226648)

Hey fag, stop posting to Slashdot and get back to making my latte. Oh and I heard that Lucky Brand is having a skinny Jeans sale so you and the other baristas should hit up the joint tonight. And make sure to tell everyone about how you're a ruby "programmer".

2/10, must try harder.

Re:Ruby is a TURD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226678)

U mad, bro?

Re:Ruby is a TURD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226742)

So if I am making your latte, you must be that guy with the MacBook Pro, Lucky Brand skinny jeans and emo glasses?

Re:Ruby is a TURD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226436)

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Are you too high-and-mighty to respect those who want to learn how to... program? Everyone starts learning sometime, somewhere. Even you were a newb once. Have you forgotten?

Or did I just feed a troll...

Re:Ruby is a TURD (2)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228752)

Probably.

I'm not sure how to feel about all of this. Not the comments from the Anon, but the Ruby situation. Some of the hate is about the language and I'll admit it, I'm not a fan of Ruby. OK, RoR, I see some of the benefits, Ruby on its own, well, just not a fan. I'll just leave it at that before I display any more stupidity and ignorance, just to say that the Anon above is right with the comment about folks not knowing much outside of the C universe. I certainly don't.

The rest of the hate comes from something else and that is an establishment that feels fear and intimidation when they think of a new crop of kids coming out of or migrating to NYC/SF/Boston/Etc. It may be based entirely on stereotyping, but any potential project I can think of, I can do a quick search on GitHub and find a Ruby variant or two or five on it. Couple that with the fact that some top schools are showing some love for Ruby and an unconscious bit of class warfare begins to show up.

When I think back to Ilya Zhitomirskiy, regardless of why he did what he did, I feel like a total shitbag. Me and hundreds of people here on Slashdot had nothing but negative things to say about his project. So yeah, there is a feeling of blood on my hands and that feeling stretches on to any fashionista comments about those who write Ruby.

Bah, enough rambling, that has just been on my mind for a few months now.

Re:Ruby is a TURD (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230348)

I learned programming by taking classes in C and Intel x86 assembly. I think it's not unreasonable to expect others to do the same, though I'd accept Java as a substitute for C. If you have the ability to learn to program, then the basics of C won't be that difficult to grasp (I said the basics. Some of the more advanced topics of C can take a while to learn, but you can still write programs without knowing them-they'll just be more inefficient).

Re:Ruby is a TURD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226058)

The point of Ruby, or any scripting language for that matter, is not to think of how the computer works. The point is to focus on getting the task done, and let the computer worry about itself. They are our tools, not the other way around. Let the system and mission critical programmers worry about the computer. It's not like back in the glorious old days where every clock cycle and byte of ram mattered. Today we have a glut of idling clock cycles and cheap ram.

Re:Ruby is a TURD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226076)

I don't know about you but I want the people making such a fantasy platform to actually know what they're doing given that they're the ones who have to live in reality and deal with how the computer works. Also, does anyone remember when using a negative number in the array index in Ruby caused a buffer underflow?

Try out openshift (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38225996)

While I am a fan of both of these services, I really enjoy using openshift more. OpenShift is completely free and supports ruby, python, perl, java, and PHP.

For those who don't know, OpenShift is Red Hat's free platform as a service all running on top of RHEL.
--

Re:Try out openshift (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38227130)

Free as in costing no money whatsoever? Does it scale at all? Sounds like a big money pit.

Re:Try out openshift (1)

mpetnuch (717102) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229496)

Well the software is free, you can download and run it on your own server (Express) or you can have it run via your Amazon EC2 account (Flex), which is not free. So while the software is free, the computer time is not (although I think will pay for your first 30 Amazon EC2 hours to try it out).

Re:Try out openshift (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38235026)

Do it's a platform without the infrastructure to run it on. Interesting idea, but not really what people generally mean with PaaS.

Re:Try out openshift (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38228908)

Thanks! https://openshift.redhat.com/app/ [redhat.com]

I must be missing something (1)

pdxer (2520686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38226338)

There are a jillion places where I can run PHP + MySQL. Every web hosting company on the planet probably.

Ruby on Rails? Probably less than 1 in 4 support it, and many of those that do don't do a good job.

Why? Why is RoR so specialized?

Re:I must be missing something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38226682)

Ruby is so slow you'd literally need 10 times as many servers in a hosted environment.

Re:I must be missing something (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228024)

Only if you're doing it wrong.

Re:I must be missing something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38227494)

It's not really that specialized. You can pretty much replicate a LAMP stack with Passenger and apache (or nginx) - it's just using ruby on the web is relatively recent and many hosts still live in 2004.

Re:I must be missing something (3, Interesting)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 2 years ago | (#38227970)

This. It's not specific to Ruby frameworks though. You're pretty much in the same situation if you want to use anything other than PHP+MySQL. Generic hosts nowadays are pretty much meant for non-programmers to run their own PhpBB, Wordpress, Drupal and various legacy websites, not recently developed web applications unless the developers are still stuck in 2004 and choose PHP+MySQL as their language and database even when they have the chance to start from scratch.

Personally I just get a XEN/KVM server somewhere and install what I need myself, be it Ruby+Rails, Node.js+Railway or Scala+Play and Redis, RIAK, MongoDB and/or PostgreSQL.

Manga (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38227084)

I admit I am not a big follower of Japanese manga, that's why I probably never heard of Ruby Clouds: Engine Yard vs. Heroku, but is it any good?

Ruby, nice language, stupid names. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38229878)

Voyeur, neapolitan, rake, hoe, mogilefs, nokigiri, confection, yard, redrack, arcadia, celluloid, papyrus, paramix, vlad, rest-more, shoes-mocks and shoes-cucumber.

These all have 2 things in common. All are ruby addons that have been recently announced on the ruby mailing list. And the names give no clue what they do.

Re:Ruby, nice language, stupid names. (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230816)

How can anyone possibly not realize what shoes-cucumber does? It's a cucumber plugin for shoes! Duh!
Personally I prefer plain rspec with capybara and steak over cucumber, though. And I don't use shoes.

ask Zed Shaw (0)

Drunkulus (920976) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229920)

Rails is a ghetto.

Why doesn't someone... (2)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38232026)

Design a platform composed from the ground up as a collection of clean, interlocking modular blocks, Those blocks are designed to allow the developer to choose from a wide range of functionality and would be designed to make platform extensibility a natural process. As the library of functionality grew, 99% of the time you could just pull a few blocks out, connect them and you'd be off to the races. If you needed anything new or particularly esoteric, you could just create a new block, and when done add it to the library so others could enjoy the fruits of your labor in the future (as you enjoyed theirs now.)

I'm tired of looking at 20 different systems with 20 different sets of advantages and disadvantages. Make the app platform core module uber-tight and way fast (maybe something LISPish.) Create a simple abstraction module that provided a smooth and consistent interface so library modules could easily be written in or ported to any popular language. Of course there would be the classes of modules to support various file types and interactions, network protocols and interaction, maybe natural language or device dependent smart formatting, you could start with all kinds of goodies in the cupboard. Build the thing from the ground up to sit on a hardware abstraction layer that allows the application to leverage any and all hardware and network resources available to it. This would allow you to tune the beasty to its selected environment without the need of screwing with the platform engines configuration.

Is it just me, or isn't there now sufficient experience and information available both from the "using end" and the "designing end" to build a platform that is both flexible enough to assimilate new technology, fully utilize existing technology and provide basic services that most of us seem to be asking for on fairly regular basis. I'm not interested in religious wars. I just want to be able to slap something together without getting a doctorate in the silly thing or go through a 2 year learning curve because the tech keeps changing under my feet.

Then again maybe I'm just pissing and moaning to myself and a holy grail is just a silly myth. I'd be interested to see how others feel?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>