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!

Rolling With Ruby On Rails

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the keep-those-doggies-rolling-rawhide dept.

Programming 406

Bart Braem writes "The Ruby community is abuzz about Rails, a web application framework that makes database-backed apps dead simple. What's the fuss? Is it worth the hype? Curt Hibbs shows off Rails at ONLamp, building a simple application that even non-Rubyists can follow."

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

Ruby (0)

ReeprFlame (745959) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433174)

Thats interesting. Never heard of Ruby before but it seems very useful especially with the DB integration.

Re:Ruby (1)

belg4mit (152620) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433198)

Outside of the Ruby community itself it's probably best known within the Perl community, since Ruby is inspired by Perl.

Re:Ruby (2, Funny)

ReeprFlame (745959) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433362)

Figured that may be the case. Rubies and Perls are all gems!

Re:Ruby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433715)

And Smalltalk. The correct answer is "Ruby and Smalltalk". The block concept is very powerful, and as a result of blocks being so cool, ruby has (it seems) more killer whiz-bang frameworks than other languages. Rails, BlueCloth/RedCloth/Textile, and so on. All really shiny things.

Re:Ruby (1, Redundant)

leonmergen (807379) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433199)

What is ruby [ruby-lang.org]

Yes yes, burn me +1 redundant... :-)

Re:Ruby (2, Funny)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433326)

That's actually "-1, Redundant", but as of right now, your post is precisely at "1, Redundant"! Good call! :D

Empire Builder? (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433746)

Thats interesting. Never heard of Ruby before but it seems very useful especially with the DB integration.

Rabid Empire Builder (and Euro Rails, British Rails, Russian Rails, Iron Dragon, Lunar Rails, India Rails, Australia Rails, Nippon Rails, etc.) fan that I am, I saw the title and thought immediately that Ruby Rails was the next game from MayFair [coolgames.com] which would somehow bridge programming and empire building at the same time. Alas..

you rolled a 1, ha!, didn't compile!

Ruby... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433175)

What's it all about?
Is it good or is it whack?

Interesting, but VB.NET is better (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433196)

Ruby doesn't have FlexGrid ocx which basically makes it useless for database apps.

Re:Interesting, but VB.NET is better (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433421)

Ok from my googling FlexGrid is a framework that automatically adjust data elements alignment/scrollbars/size etc to fit certain formatting.
I've never used it so I have no idea how good it is, but I'm sure there are similar things, in other languages. But to say that a database app is useless without it is just plain silly.

Re:Interesting, but VB.NET is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433490)

Some people just have no sense of humor.

That would be you.

FlexGrid? (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433646)

Ruby doesn't have FlexGrid ocx which basically makes it useless for database apps.

FlexGrid? FLEXGRID?!?!

Implementation of FlexGrids is responsible for extreme stress, male pattern baldness, genital warts, dry heaves, infertility, webbed toes, seeing spots, loss of super powers, carpal tunnel syndrome, diarrhea, dandruff, dispepsia, gas, fingernail rot, yellowy wax buildup, stink foot, Plantars warts, incontinence, communism, crusty boogers, arthritis, bursitis and and cooties. The only treatment is 500mg of Dammitol, fiftytwo times a day.

You, sir, are a maniac.

Nice framework... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433213)

Looks good, nice to see some competition in the database backed web applications category for Java/PHP/Perl. However, I'm dubious about the claim that it's "ten times" faster than Java. It may be a bit faster, sure, but the amount of code doesn't look hugely less than what you might write to create a simple application using one of the many JSP/Servlet frameworks available.

Re:Nice framework... (2, Insightful)

leonmergen (807379) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433239)

Besides, if you do things The Right Way, when programming in OOP, the design takes a huge part of your time... and I don't really see how Java or Ruby differ in that...

Re:Nice framework... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433462)

Wow, you obviously haven't used Rails. It *IS* much faster than Java. Hell, anything is much faster than Java.

When you add something to Java (a new controller let's say), you have to configure it in a big XML file (with most if not all of the frameworks). Or a new template. Or a new model object. In rails you don't have to do any of that, it dynamically finds it! You literally *fly* in Rails (partly because of Rails, partly because of Ruby).

Re:Nice framework... (2, Insightful)

tundog (445786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433544)

In rails you don't have to do any of that, it dynamically finds it!

Thats a great concept as long as everything goes as planned. But wait until it 'dynamically finds' the wrong thing. Try debugging that nightmare. (Think VB Script + Option Explicit).

It's not so bad, Rails is unit tested very well (4, Informative)

Paradox (13555) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433674)

Firstly, Rails's ActiveRecord class is very simple Ruby code, so it's naturally bug-resistant.

Secondly, the author knows that ActiveRecord could be a source of problems, which is why it's got dozens of unit tests, covering nearly every line of code.

Thirdly, even with all that bugs can and will sneak through, which is why ActiveRecord can, upon command, write a detailed log of its attempt to dynamically bind and create the classes you want. The logging is at the message-passing level of Ruby, which is nearly as atomic as you can get (you could hack the interpreter to go further, but that'd be pointless).

The dark ages of hideous bugs in dynamic code are gone my friend. We have the tools and techniques to make code of this type both safe and maintainable. Don't be afraid of it.

Re:Nice framework... (1)

Eric Giguere (42863) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433587)

It's not that big a deal, really. I wrote a custom web application framework for an iAnywhere product that did exactly what Rails is doing, but in Java. Basically it mapped the path in a request to a set of classes. The mapping was determined at runtime through reflection. Worked well, you could do some neat stuff using inner/nested classes. The parent always got first crack at a request, so it could do filtering before the child was called and also of the child's results.

The disadvantage of doing this stuff dynamically, of course, is that it takes more time to execute, so you have to do caching to simplify things.

For the curious, the details of what I did are available online in the product documentation [sybase.com] . Eric

Re:Nice framework... (0)

tundog (445786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433504)

I'm dubious about the claim that it's "ten times" faster than Java

I'll take it one step futher.

It's not about speed anymore. Even if it is 10 times faster, 10 times slower is fast enough for most 'Enterprise Applications'. The major bottleneck in corporate grades applications are table lookups anyway.

Its really about knowledge management these days. 'It can do it all frameworks' with 'complete stacks' are nice concepts, but if the bar is too high for me to quickly start cracking out applications, then no thank you. And even if you can use it to to crank out apps quickly, you need to know Ruby first, which puts this out of reach of most of software community at large.

Flame on!

Re:Nice framework... (2, Informative)

DevNull Ogre (256715) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433609)

The "ten times" claim is about development time, not run time. You didn't take it a step further, you took an orthogonal leap.

Re:Nice framework... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433681)

If you know Perl and/or Python Ruby will come to you in about an hour. Seriously. If you don't, well, what is your excuse?

Re:Nice framework... (3, Interesting)

Paradox (13555) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433619)

Sir, may I ask you exactly how you're going to get your Java framework of choice to connect, comprehend, and dynamically bind to a SQL table in only 2 lines of code? Because that's what you're going to have to do to beat Rails in code count. For instance, if we have a table called "Clients". It has lots of fields.

If we want to link it to Rails, we'd use the following code:

class Client < ActiveRecord::Base
end
Yeah. That's really it. And you can specify relations with a simple micro-language in the class declaration (that's based out of ruby syntax). Once you've done this, you can write code like this:
my_client = Client.find( 26 ) # Find by primary key
my_client2 = Client.find_by_manager_id( 12 ) # Find by some field

# This code prints out each client's id and name
Client.find_all.each do |c|
puts "#{c.id}: #{c.name}
end
And Rails makes the action mappings just as simple. I'd eat my old shoes before I'd believe that there is some lurking JSP/Servlet framework that has evaded my sight (and everyone's sight, really) that can do better. I know Java's limitations pretty well.

Hibernate (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433706)

Hibernate does take care of this nicely, but certainly not with 2 lines of code :)

Played with it (4, Informative)

tenchiken (22661) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433216)

And did a quick application with Ruby on Rails already. If you are confortable with Perl, you may find this easier to deal with then Python and it's love of whitespace. The object model is much more developed then either python or perl, but it still retains much of the flexability of the other two systems.

Ruby has already inspired a few efforts to duplicate the technology in Java and in .NET. Since the core technology behind RoR is open classes, and the ability to add accessors and functionality on the fly, the other languages just don't cut it.

The usual warnings apply. Implicit code is easier 90% of the time, but that other 10% is painful to debug. With large projects you can prototype fast, but maintaining may be much more difficult.

I used to work with Curt Hibbs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433280)

He is a really brillant guy, but he had a really annoying habit of picking his nose and eating the booger in public. This really sickened co-workers at meetings. But he was always very nice!

Re:I used to work with Curt Hibbs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433318)

What's so bad about eating your own bugars? Everybody does it. And it's good for your immune system too because it gets to practice on the nasties that you captured in your mucus.

But in public is disgusting to most people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433376)

now in private there is nothing wrong about doing it

I worked with him too (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433415)

He ate his feces in meetings, when I knew him. Drove people nuts. This was when he was fresh out of college so he's probably mellowed since. You could always tell which laptop was his though, from the stains. Very nice guy though.

Re:Played with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433516)

'then' is not synonymous with 'than'. Your first sentence is very hard to parse on the first read because of your spelling error

Re:Played with it (1)

tigeba (208671) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433540)

"Ruby has already inspired a few efforts to duplicate the technology in Java and in .NET. Since the core technology behind RoR is open classes, and the ability to add accessors and functionality on the fly, the other languages just don't cut it."

I can't speak about .NET, but the ability to add methods on the fly has been available in Java for quite some time, and the metadata features added in 1.5 enhance this by providing a language hook for tools that do this (as opposed to using XML config files). This is essentially how the popular and mature persistence framework Hibernate works (and the upcoming EJB 3.0 which is essentially Hibernate ).

The examples seemed very simple and straightforward, but I didn't care for them putting the queries essentially on the pages, since I find that very tedious and error-prone in the long run. I would assume Rails would make it
easy enough to have methods which do the queries for you and simply return collections to be used on the page.

I see they have added support for a few more databases recently. Still no Oracle however :)

Re:Played with it (1)

swimmar132 (302744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433764)

Oracle is coming very soon!

What do you mean by "queries essentially on the pages"?

why onLAMP? (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433218)

Look all of you LAMP users... You can do the same thing using Ruby that you can do with whichever P in LAMP you prefer (PHP, Perl, or Python)! Can we change our name to onLAM{P,R} now?

Re:why onLAMP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433251)

What about us JAM programmers? Hmmmm?

Re:why onLAMP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433336)

Most rubyistas prefer PostgreSQL, actually. You could transpose a couple letters then and call it LARP, but that might get a little confusing...

Re:why onLAMP? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433343)

Can we change our name to onLAM{P,R} now?

How about LAM3R?

Re:why onLAMP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433451)

You can do all of this on Windows too. Or FreeBSD. Or any of a number of things that aren't Linux.

why onLAMP?-LAML-Seaside. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433465)

LAML [cs.auc.dk]

Seaside [seaside.st]

Question is. What took you all so long?

Re:why onLAMP?-LAML-Seaside. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433496)

> Question is. What took you all so long?

We've been waiting for something not smalltalk.

You know, a non-proprietary compiler that doesn't suck and isn't bogged down by a nonstandard slow and cumbersome GUI as the primary interface. Code browsers with idioms from the current decade are also nice -- some people like trees, not a half-dozen tiny listboxes.

Re:why onLAMP? (1)

cmallinson (538852) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433635)

People obviously will not use Ruby, as they would then have LAMR app.

REST Web Services w/Client-side XForms (1, Insightful)

Baldrson (78598) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433226)

Rails is a big deal from the stand point of a world where Java frameworks are considered state of the art. However, the big breakthrough with Rails will come when a Rails-based REST web services generator presents the database schema to a client-side ECMAScript XForms/templating solution.

Re:REST Web Services w/Client-side XForms (1, Funny)

ahem (174666) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433429)

You know, the parent probably isn't a troll, but it sure reads like one to me. I guess I'm just too far away from the state of the art over here. I've lost my buzzword compliance.

Seems kind of windows-oriented (1)

paroneayea (642895) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433230)

I don't mean this as a "let's bash Windows" kind of argument. It is just that, if you aren't running Windows, you'll have to make a lot of adjustments in reading this article. Just a heads up. If you are using Windows though, looks like this could be very useful. If not, it could probably still be of use anyway.

Re:Seems kind of windows-oriented (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433279)

Tried it on a linux machine. Just went smoothly. The only adjustments : use phpMyAdmin for SQL, and changing the application root path.

Not such a big deal.

Re:Seems kind of windows-oriented (1)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433459)

I think they're just using the windows stuff as a sales pitch to Windows people. It says, "In most frameworks, this part of the application can grow pretty messy, tedious, verbose, and error-prone. Rails makes it dead simple!" That's marketing language. The toughest job is convincing non-technical managers. They will often look at something without a simple GUI installer like something from the dark ages. To them, presentation conveys product maturity and professionalism.

Let them chew on RoR on their WinXP boxes, while the real work gets done on servers. As far as making "adjustments," I don't want to be a gentoo snob, but all I did was emerge ruby && emerge mysql. And just to throw my hat into the LAMP debate, I am not a professional web programmer, but I find php's cobbledtogetherness and inConSisTent function_names quite aggravating and weird, and I'm sure aforementioned bosses do too.

But... But... There's IIS! (3, Funny)

MooseByte (751829) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433477)


"If you are using Windows though, looks like this could be very useful."

Only if it can match the stability and security of IIS that we've come to depend on. Otherwise it's just another shoddy product built by communists for communists.

More on Ruby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433234)

The Ruby language home page is here [ruby-lang.org] , and the main reference book is the Pickaxe (from the Pragmatic Programmers [pragmaticprogrammer.com] )

Useful Ruby Online Resources (categorized) (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433259)

A categorized collection of ruby links can be found here in a nicer format:

http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RubyOnTheNet [rubygarden.org]

Interactive ruby resources:

irc://irc.freenode.net/ruby-lang - the #ruby-lang channel is popular. More info at RubyOnIRC

http://www.ruby-forum.org/bb/ - a forum for ruby novices to ask questions

news://comp.lang.ruby - the ruby newsgroup

Ruby websites:

http://www.ruby-lang.org/ - ruby home

http://www.ruby-doc.org/ - ruby docs and online reference

http://www.rubyforge.org/ - rubyforge ruby projects

http://raa.ruby-lang.org/ - ruby application archive

Ruby Code Examples and Snippets:

http://pleac.sourceforge.net/pleac_ruby/ - ruby pleac

http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RubyOnlineCookboo k - ruby cookbook

Popular ruby and ruby-related projects:

http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl - ruby installer for Windows

http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems/ - rubygems ruby package manager

http://www.yaml.org/ - ruby 1.8 includes built-in yaml support

http://www.rubyonrails.com/ - web framework in ruby

http://rubyforge.org/projects/instiki/ - wiki in ruby

Re:Useful Ruby Online Resources (categorized) (2, Funny)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433328)

Thanks. That should help if google gets slashdotted and we can't find information on our own.

Re:Useful Ruby Online Resources (categorized) (1)

teebo (43281) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433472)

Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby

http://poignantguide.net/ [poignantguide.net]

Re:Useful Ruby Online Resources (categorized) (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433599)

And don't forget Hobix [hobix.com] , a blogging software written by the same guy. You can install it with a one-liner: ruby -ropen-uri -e 'eval(open("http://go.hobix.com/").read)'

Code, Snort, Code, Snort (3, Funny)

MrAsstastic (851637) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433264)

Back where I am from, using rails all night to code a project can land you in trouble with the law, drain you financially and mentally, and leave you with a nosebleed. Best stay away from this nonsense.

scurvIE bastards still at IT? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433273)

the corepirate nazi felon execrable that is.

with robbIE's (& his faulty PostBlock censorship devise) help?

what a mess.

all is not lost?

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. evening things out (using newclear power (this stuff is unbreakable, & wwworks on several (more than 3) dimensions):-) since/until forever. see you there?

Ruby still needs ISP support (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433277)

The biggest drawback to RubyOnRails is that you wont find it installed on very many webhosts.

I given it a testdrive, and RubyOnRails is an amazingly fast and powerful way to develop webapps, but even so, it's been around for a while and still 99% of webhosts only stick to tomcat & PHP/MySQL, so that's what I code for. Even Python w/o Rails has more ISP support.

My question is: When will RubyOnRails get "popular enough" to make inroads? I'm looking forward to it, because it means I can be way more productive and get a head start on all the other PHP "solution providers" out there.

Re:Ruby still needs ISP support (2, Informative)

Aredridel (93503) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433340)

http://theinternetco.net/offers/ruby

Ready, installed, and waiting.

Re:Ruby still needs ISP support (2, Informative)

JackRuby43 (588879) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433385)

so does Modwest (a great host and supporter of Open Source)

http://www.modwest.com/ [modwest.com]

Re:Ruby still needs ISP support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433387)

Here's the only web host you need: http://www.textdrive.com/

Re:Ruby still needs ISP support (1)

rollerbob (739079) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433400)

The hosting service Textdrive [textdrive.com] has support for Rails and I'm sure many more will pop up.

Re:Ruby still needs ISP support (2, Informative)

swimmar132 (302744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433528)

And, if you get hosting at TextDrive, they'll give half of your money to supporting RubyonRails development!

Re:Ruby still needs ISP support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433562)

After it hits 1.0.

What about SCGI? (2, Interesting)

Craig Ringer (302899) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433695)

Personally, I'd like to see SCGI deployed more widely. Then we could drop the requirement for mod_<whatever_language_of_the_day> for many apps, and make it much easier to deploy frameworks and languages on hosting providers.

I've been really impressed with SCGI for my own work (a Quixote + Python based web app).

Ruby On Rails (2, Interesting)

ezmobius (837619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433333)

This framework is very nice. If your looking to get away from the sometimes mess of php web development, then this is a great choice. Ruby is a very expressive and powerful language that is very easy to read and code. And also very easy to make wrappers for c libraries. The rails framework does make it _very_ fast to develop MVC web apps with a small amount of intuitive code. And the rubyonrails mailing list is very active and friendly.

Pay for MySQL front? (1)

mebollocks (798866) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433341)

You have to pay for a front-end to MySQL ? The world's most popular open source database doesn't have a free front-end? em... sorry, I just didn't know this and am exclaiming out loud... please move along.

Re:Pay for MySQL front? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433455)

The world's most popular open source database doesn't have a free front-end?


Yes, it does, try phpMyAdmin [phpmyadmin.net]

Re:Pay for MySQL front? (1)

MasTRE (588396) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433728)

> You have to pay for a front-end to MySQL ? The world's most popular open source database doesn't have a free front-end? em... sorry, I just didn't know this and am exclaiming out loud... please move along.

As long as we're off-topic here.. The world's most popular interface to a filesystem, mysql, does have quite an excellent, free, open source front end: phpMyAdmin. However, Curt Hibbs, the author of this highly Windows-centric article, chose to go the eye-candy route for maximum brownie points with highly impressionable, brain-dead users. I had to exercise active restraint to not hate on Ruby/Rails because of this.

Good for "recipe" queries but little else (0, Flamebait)

IHateSlashDot (823890) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433367)

It's funny. I was just discussing the bygone days of visual programming the other day. It faded into obscurtity with good reason in the late 80's.

Take a look at this example. It's incrediblyl complicated and all it does is display a horrible little form that lets you query cookbook recipies!

Why do people get all excited about this nonsense. There's no reason for either Ruby or Rail (nice name) today.

It's not useful for anything bigger than a 'hello world' application.

Re:Good for "recipe" queries but little else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433395)

What are you smoking? Ruby on Rails is especially useful for large applications. Take a look at BaseCampHQ [basecamphq.com] for example.

Re:Good for "recipe" queries but little else (4, Informative)

Minam (456447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433401)

You might want to tell that to Basecamp [basecamphq.com] , 43 Things [43things.com] , and Tada Lists [tadalist.com] , since they obviously have no idea that Rails isn't good for anything of that magnitude. Might also mention it to all the thousands of people that use those sites, daily, and to the handful of developers who built and deployed those sites in a fraction of the time and cost of other web solutions.

Then again, maybe you shouldn't...

Re:Good for "recipe" queries but little else (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433525)

Are there any complex, open source, examples? Just, I'd love to see how doing these things with Rails affected the amount of code needed...

Re:Good for "recipe" queries but little else (3, Informative)

Minam (456447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433578)

Consider Hieraki [hieraki.org] , or RForum [andreas-s.net] , or any of the other projects listed at the bottom of The Ruby-on-Rails docs page [rubyonrails.com] .

Have you ever programmed a web app before? (5, Informative)

Paradox (13555) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433510)

Well, most of the article is setup. But I do agree the article is less than a stunning demo of rails. Instead, you might want to fire up the video at www.rubyonrails.com [nextangle.com] which walks you through a 10 minute application build.

It's extremely cool to watch someone set up a working webapp that fast.

But I have to take issue with:

Take a look at this example. It's incrediblyl complicated and all it does is display a horrible little form that lets you query cookbook recipies!
Half of the darn article is setting up MySql and installing Ruby and Rails from scratch on a windows machine. Do you have any idea how much harder this crap is to write in other frameworks? You'd have to write at least 2x as much code. No one has an Active Record class as good as Rails'. You'd double the code count just doing the SQL linkage!

It's one thing to be unimpressed, but it's another to know jack shit about the domain and say it's all worthless. Anyone who's ever made a web application will appreciate it.

Re:Good for "recipe" queries but little else (2, Insightful)

Tobias Luetke (707936) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433543)

This is not insightful. If you want to see how well it scales look all all [basecamphq.com] the [43things.com] production [tadalist.com] grade [hieraki.org] applications [leetsoft.com] out there. The source to hieraki [hieraki.org] is freely accessible.

Rails is NOT your run the mill proof of concept framework. Its the next level of programming environment right now and here. Available for you to download under MIT license. The people who use it make applications magnitudes faster than the people who aren't. Single people can be as productive as whole teams.

There hasn't been an improvement in productivity like this in recent programming-history.

And don't just put down what you don't understand, give it a try.

Your attitude will just get you boring jobs.

Re:Good for "recipe" queries but little else (1)

stuntpope (19736) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433723)

There hasn't been an improvement in productivity like this in recent programming-history.

Explain how this framework is orders of magnitude better than, say, Zope (which I'm most familiar with of the web app frameworks). I skimmed through the Hibbs' demo and wasn't so wowed. I thought it was cool that the framework takes care of the ORB-ing through 'generate' commands and then automatically picks up the changes to the table structure, but Rails isn't alone in making the brokering easy. I might give it a try, but it's yet another framework, and yet another language for me, without (to me) the amazing benefits you claim for it.

Re:Good for "recipe" queries but little else (1)

swimmar132 (302744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433555)

Insightful?

Lets see you do the same thing cleanly with a MVC pattern in any other language/framework in as little effort as you can with Rails.

Re:Good for "recipe" queries but little else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433611)

Where exactly did you see any visual programming? I think its time for you to see a psych...

Re:Good for "recipe" queries but little else (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433738)

MODS!!! This isn't "insightful", it's "uninformed".

It's funny. I was just discussing the bygone days of visual programming the other day. It faded into obscurtity with good reason in the late 80's.

This isn't "visual programming". What the HELL are you talking about. The article had a lot of visuals, maybe that threw you off!

This is more like dynamic programming in Lisp from the 60's and 70's, come back with a web app slant. I was just discussing with *my* friends how lame Java and other languages are because you can't factor out chunks of code the way you can in Lisp or Ruby.

Being able to set up a bunch of boilerplate in just one line is *useful*. Then you go back and fill in the blanks. This is what programming is supposed to be like!

Take a look at this example. It's incrediblyl complicated and all it does is display a horrible little form that lets you query cookbook recipies!

Okay, I call your bluff. Write a similar article writing a similar app in your favorite language and framework. Post it here in a slashdot comment. Go on, we'll wait. Remember, you have to start from scratch on an empty Windows box, install the framework, the database, and the web server, and create a simple *readable* *well-factored* app.

There's no reason for either Ruby or Rail (nice name) today.

You must be a hard-core Lisp or Scheme programmer. Otherwise you're talking out of your butt. I moved to Ruby a couple years ago and it blew my mind. My programs are short, readable, easy to test, and just as powerful as Java or Python (maybe not quite as *fast* but just wait, Ruby is still v1.x).

It's not useful for anything bigger than a 'hello world' application.

Well, as others have pointed out, there are Rails apps that are bigger than "hello world". So your statement is wrong.

I know, I know. You spent all this time learning JavaSomething or PHPSomethingElse and now somebody's pointed out something that renders all that effort a waste of brain space. I understand. It's the same as folks who cling to MySQL when there's PostgreSQL or who still write CGI apps in C++ because they don't want to drop this cool library they wrote or they still use Perl for OO programming because it took 2 years to figure it out and they don't want to start over. You're in denial. You know you can do everything you need in your favorite framework, so you won't let yourself believe you can do the same, faster, in something else.

It's just a pity (4, Funny)

Metteyya (790458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433381)

I like Ruby, even before I got to know Rails. The only thing I regret is that LAMR sounds really bad.

I develop webpages with LAMR - imagine saying something like that ;).

Re:It's just a pity (1)

arkanes (521690) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433479)

Use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL and you can re-factor it to LARP!

"Build a better LAMP!" (1)

StandardDeviant (122674) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433495)

As a coworker said: "Build a better LAMP: Linux Apache Middleware Postgres!" ;) [Where "middleware" could be anything more robust than your typical php sleazeware.]

Re:It's just a pity (1)

Garion911 (10618) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433509)

Even worse:

LAMROR

Re:It's just a pity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433549)

Speak for yourself. I develop with WPR ... geez, I don't even have a webserver in the equation -- I just front-end it with squid on another box if I need more oomph.

Okay, so what else does it do? (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433393)

That's great if all I want to do is maintain a database through a web interface. I don't. Most of my work involves complex modification of that data, or calculations based on it.

Does Rails help with that?

Don't get me wrong, I've got some simple PHP lying around this could replace brilliantly, but first impressions are it doesn't help with the really complex stuff.

Yes, it does help with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433498)

That's great if all I want to do is maintain a database through a web interface. I don't. Most of my work involves complex modification of that data, or calculations based on it. Does Rails help with that?

Yes. It makes you spend less time on other stuff, so you can spend it on the modifications and calculations.

Re:Okay, so what else does it do? (4, Informative)

swimmar132 (302744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433575)

Perhaps the documentation for ActiveRecord will help answer your question?

http://ar.rubyonrails.org/

You can automatically retrieve data from the database in the form of an object, do manipulations or calculations, display it, modify it, then do a save() method on the object and it'll go right back into the database.

Re:Okay, so what else does it do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433586)

Instead of asking when dont you go and see for yourself? I though Slashdot was a place full of smart guys... I was wrong.

Rails is just the tip of the iceberg (4, Informative)

Paradox (13555) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433409)

Rails is an incredibly good framework for Ruby, that really shows off its power and makes it easy to get a web application going, but it's not all that Ruby has to offer.

Ruby is full of incredible libraries and frameworks like this, especially where text processing and web development are concerned. It's because Ruby has such a rich set of features.

Anyone who likes Rails should dig deeper. Heck, Ruby's standard library comes with some amazing things. Ruby also has a framework called RubyGems [rubyforge.org] ,
which is very much like Perl's CPAN integration or CommonLisp's ASDF framework.

HTML (1)

Run4yourlives (716310) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433424)

I notice Ruby's spitting out a lot of html (full forms etc.)

Does it validate as standards compliant?

Re:HTML (1)

swimmar132 (302744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433591)

Hi,

Rails provides CRUD (Create, Retrieve, Update, Delete) helpers if you want to use them. They're aren't necessary by any means, they just provide an easy, extremely quick way (one line of code) to create forms that will let you operate on a database table.

I'm not sure if the code that it generates is standards-compliant, but I'd imagine that it is.

Re:HTML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433625)

It's just as standards compliant as Slashdot is.

Yes, but... (1)

Paradox (13555) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433730)

Yes, the code is standards compliant. But that's not saying much, the scaffolding feature is so basic it's not saying much.

In general you do not use those scaffolds in the production app. They're placeholders for you as you program your actions, and in that regard they're very useful.

So great, so slow (1)

madshot (621087) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433461)

wow.. the power of /. You anounce the web link, everyone tries to hit it.. and it shows just how underpowered their database applications are (or how slow their i-net connection is).. Don't know about you.. but the website appears to be almost /.'ed. maybe in a few more minutes it will be 100% unresponsive.

Re:So great, so slow (1)

swimmar132 (302744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433610)

The linked websites are all loading fine for me...

Re:So great, so slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433718)

You do realize almost all website will succumb to the power of slashdotting in a matter of minutes, regardless of the platform and framework, right? If not, you must be new here.

Way to find a news article... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433507)

that no one gives a shit about.

FAQ: Why isn't Ruby more popular than ...? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433547)

Ruby is a relatively new programming language from Japan that is rapidly growing in popularity. In Japan it has already overtaken Python in popularity and has started to gain a loyal following in other countries.

Before year 2000, there were no English-language books about Ruby. Now we have a fast-growing English library including Ruby in a Nutshell, Programming Ruby 2nd Ed., Teach Yourself Ruby in 21 Days, and more.

The lack of English documentation was what held Ruby back in popularity. With that problem now largely addressed, it has started to gain popularity rather quickly in the USA.

Ruby was designed by Yukihiro Matsumoto, a.k.a "Matz". It is a pure OO language but has time-saving features which make it useful for one-liners like Perl. If you like being highly productive, having fun programming, and want your code to make sense a year later, then give Ruby a try.

How does this compare to other stacks? (2, Interesting)

darekana (205478) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433558)

Any comparisons to Hibernate stacks, Struts, Zope3, CherryPy etc?

Re:How does this compare to other stacks? (3, Informative)

dash2 (155223) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433661)

or indeed Maypole [perl.org] ?

web frameworks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433639)

If you're at all serious about your web applications you really need to understand what's under the hood.
Frameworks are helpful, esp. when they have a nice logical structure, but you should spend quite a lot of time understanding how they work, b/c you WILL need to hack it eventually. I found my own apps have gotten better over time by sticking with ONE framework I know very well and continually refining the underlying code.

Rails is awesome (4, Interesting)

swimmar132 (302744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433652)

I've almost finished developing a real estate site using it. First time using Rails.

In PHP or other related language, probably would've taken me about 80 hours or so to develop the site. In Rails, I've spent maybe 15 hours or so total on it. And I'm charging $8k for the site. Admittedly, that doesn't include time working on the graphics or design of the site, just the backend, search, etc.

So if you look at it from one perspective, I went from making $100 an hour to $533 an hour using Rails!

Ruby is the Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11433659)

This framework is absolutely incredible to code in. Of course, I'm one of the ruby-talk mailing list members, but there is no way you can't love rails. I'm generally a network/low-level programmer, but I can make a perfect intranet web app for any purpose in a matter of just a few hours. It's beautiful. And I do know Perl, Python, and various Java technologies. Ruby users choose what they love because they love it and it works, not because of industry pressures or popularity. It's addictive!

Looks like Oracle's HTML DB... (1)

42.5 (530984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11433698)

Only harder and less user-friendly. I'm sure for java programmers this seems easy. My typical audience is Excel users who know practically nothing about programming.
Oracle HTML DB Quick Tour [oracle.com] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?