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 on Rails 1.0 Released

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the web-deployment-made-easy dept.

Programming 332

Simon (S2) writes "Ruby on Rails 1.0 has been released. From the announcement: 'Rails 1.0 is mostly about making all the work we've been doing solid. So it's not packed with new features over 0.14.x, but has spit, polish, and long nights applied to iron out kinks and ensure that it works mostly right, most of the time, for most of the people.' " The Ruby on Rails website has also been given a new look.

cancel ×

332 comments

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

Woohoo! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14252804)

Woohoo!

Re:Woohoo! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14252849)

Being married to CmdrTaco (by Kathleen Fent).

- You will get Fried Chicken on your birthday. If there's any left over from his KFS lunch with Cowboy Neal.

-If he is an insensitive asshole to you, it is only because you are selfish. You should understand that his parents sucked and now you have to pay for this. How this is logical, I'm not really sure.

-He will never kiss you, and barely fuck you, even if you beg him to for months. And when he does fuck you, he's probably half drunk and insists on you wearing a strap on and dressed up like a construction worker.

-When guys come over to the apartment, he suddenly becomes "cool CmdrTaco", and talks shit about you. If you say anything, he just says "don't mind the skank, she's fucking crazy."

- On your anniversary, he gets drunk, hangs out with Hemos, and comes home the next day smelling like shit and KY jelly.

first (-1, Offtopic)

Hypocritical Guy (674824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252807)

can I get a w00t?

Commercial equivalent is...? (4, Interesting)

cytoman (792326) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252813)

When talking about commercial software like MS Office, we talk about the "Open source equivalent" OpenOffice.org and stuff like that. I'm curious to know whether there is a commercial equivalent to Ruby on Rails.

Re:Commercial equivalent is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14252856)

It's called QBASIC.

Re:Commercial equivalent is...? (5, Informative)

wilburpb (920386) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252863)

Perhaps Coldfusion, WebObjects, .net, or J2EE+Struts (depending on your definition of 'commercial')

Re:Commercial equivalent is...? (3, Informative)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253038)

Ruby on Rails is to mod_ruby what Fusebox is to Coldfusion.

Coldfusion is a language of itself [albeit a simple one] that runs on top of a J2EE engine called Jrun... /me = coldfusion person (I also know and use ruby a lot, and am working on learning RoR)

Re:Commercial equivalent is...? (1, Interesting)

mr_da3m0n (887821) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253187)

I would like to take this moment to mention that I have been administering a production Jrun server, and three development server (with four instances (servers) each) with different requirements, and probably contracted cancer and killed my dog in the process. Either the code is obscenely crappy, or Jrun is completely awful. So far, I think the latter applies... Updaters that crap out, micro patches distributed only in the support forums so you end up with micro version mismatches, strange error messages, nothing rendered and absolutely nothing useful in the logs, even with full debugging output enabled, strange results with Java 1.5 such as some forms refusing to post correctly and mismatching the encoding, complete and utter inepty to properly run as a service and be restarted 100% of the time... Coldfusion still exists? The checkbox for it is unticked by default when you add an IIS connector in Windows.

Re:Commercial equivalent is...? (2, Informative)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253199)

That's actually kind of inaccurate, if I understand the situation correctly.

mod_ruby is apparently a very limited way of embedding ruby code inside a web page, a la mod_php and the PHP language. Ruby on Rails works through the use of a CGI (or, preferably, a fast_cgi) script called the Dispatcher, which is (unsurprisingly) written in Ruby. The dispatcher handles the translation of requests and URIs to the code you've written using Ruby and the Rails framework.

It would be more accurate to say that Ruby is to Rails as PHP/Coldfusion is to Fusebox.

Re:Commercial equivalent is...? (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253082)

Of your list webobjects comes the closest. ROR is a kind of a anti-j2ee thing. Do people still use coldfusion?

Re:Commercial equivalent is...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253211)

Yes, ColdFusion does still exist and actually runs one of the most high traffic websites on the internet - MySpace.com

Mod_python has easier syntax (-1, Troll)

billybob2 (755512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253170)

It's hard to get excited about any tool based on Ruby because it inherits so much confusing syntax from Perl. To many programmers, Perl code looks like gibberish, and that's part of the reason it's falling out of favor. I'm afraid the same will happen to Ruby, which is too bad since its strict adherence to object-oriented concepts is admirable.

I much prefer Python [python.org] and Mod_Python [modpython.org] for web programming, since its syntax is cleaner closer to plain English.

Re:Mod_python has easier syntax (4, Informative)

richieb (3277) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253233)

It's hard to get excited about any tool based on Ruby because it inherits so much confusing syntax from Perl.

Where did you get this impression? Maybe because you saw some regular expressions in Ruby? Ruby syntax is much, much clearer than Perl.

Take a look here [rubyist.net]

"mostly right"??? (0, Flamebait)

kclittle (625128) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252829)

"mostly right, most of the time, for most of the people."???
Is this the standard by which the Ruby community judges software goodness? I'm speechless.

Re:"mostly right"??? (4, Insightful)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252861)

I'd prefer to look at it as honesty.

Re:"mostly right"??? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14252914)

I'd prefer to look at it as a sign that maybe the jump from 0.14 to 1.0 is a bit premature.

I'm thinking the authors are trying to get it up in the major release number so it can be seen as a true competitor to .NET or any of the various J2EE web frameworks out there...Im not sure if this will do it, but I think next week's RoR 2.0 release will be the kicker that makes Microsoft and Sun/Apache/Spring wonder what they've been wasting their time on...;)

Re:"mostly right"??? (3, Insightful)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252947)

ANYONE who claims everything works perfectly is a lying sack of shit. It's as simple as that. The only way to come anywhere close to being able to make that claim would be to heavily qualify it, e.g., With Database X on OS Y, version Z, and library versions A, B, C, on hardware platform D. Anything more broad than that is just not a valid claim.

Re:"mostly right"??? (1)

jarom (899827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253094)

Did you mean OS X?

Re:"mostly right"??? (1)

SavvyPlayer (774432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253226)

Yes. Where do Sun, MS, etc. explicitly state their framework runs perfectly for all users all of the time? They don't because such a claim would be patently false, and there simply is no sexy way to articulate the truth, which is exactly what the Ruby team arbitrarily decided to do anyway. Regardless whether the ambitions of the Ruby team extend to widespread adoption, such careless honesty from such a visible project may inadvertenly damage overall market perception of the f/oss community, regardless of the actual quality of the offering (over the short-term at least). Welcome to the corporate marketplace -- arguably the most fickle place on Earth.

Re:"mostly right"??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14252866)

This might be a response to the saying "you can please all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you can't please all the people all of the time."

Re:"mostly right"??? (2, Insightful)

sterwill (972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252904)

How would you describe the software you write?

Re:"mostly right"??? (1)

kclittle (625128) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252950)

The software I write is of much higher quality than "mostly" raised to the third power. :)

Re:"mostly right"??? (0, Troll)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253015)

Can you provide links to some software that you have written, for us to stress test?

There is a very good chance that we could, to put it nicely, molest the fucking guts right out of your software.

Ruby on Rails is being used by many people, and it is maturing very rapidly. It's that sort of real-world use that results in well-written, stable, secure software. Not only that, but Ruby developers are on the leading edge of agile development methods. They're amongst the most experienced users of unit testing, for instance.

Other projects, such as PHP, could really learn a lesson in effective software design from the Ruby community.

Re:"mostly right"??? (4, Insightful)

IAmTheDave (746256) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252905)

"mostly right, most of the time, for most of the people."??? Is this the standard by which the Ruby community judges software goodness? I'm speechless.

Yeah, it's not great, but at least it's honest. Go on any developer site - MSDN, java.sun.com, whatever, and you'll see a nice long list of submitted bugs. Fact is, no software is perfect, so don't go crazy when they admit there might be uncaught bugs.

Re:"mostly right"??? (3, Informative)

quigonn (80360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252911)

At least it's more honest than the usual "it brings world peace and helps improve your stamina" attitude I see with other frameworks, especially within the Java community (that last clause will probably start off a flamewar :->).

Re:"mostly right"??? (3, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252943)

That's a far higher standard than you'll find used by most commercial developers.

Remember, Ruby is at the forefront of the agile development community. Many developments in unit testing, for instance, directly involve Ruby. Ruby developers are often the most experienced at effectively employing such development techniques.

And you know what? It shows. Ruby software is often of extremely high quality. It's not perfect, but there is much effort taken to ensure correctly-functioning code.

Jebus, has the poster or mod ever used rails?????? (3, Insightful)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253008)

The point of rails is to have sensible defaults that work most of the time. Web apps share A LOT of commonality. The idea is to take out repitiveness as much as possible. This is done with sensible defaults. If these aren't good for you, they can be changed. But it's meant to have reasonable defaults for most, unlike certain web languages that make you start from scratch every time.

Re:"mostly right"??? (1)

shoffsta (905698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253036)

"mostly right, most of the time, for most of the people."???
Is this the standard by which the Ruby community judges software goodness? I'm speechless.


It certainly is better to know the problems/that there are problems in a piece of software, rather than having problems that are kept secret - the way MS, etc do it. Software is never perfect, whether you admit the problems it has or not.

It just works... mostly (4, Interesting)

cerelib (903469) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252833)

Screw that overstated "It just works" stuff. I like the truthfulness of their statement, "it works mostly right, most of the time, for most of the people"

What Ruby on Rails is ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14252908)

It's a new kind of digital "red" cocaine, made by processing coca leaves with iron phosphate and coating the result with a light silicone mist on which nano-transistors can be printed. The resulting product produces, when smoked or inhaled -- hence the "rails" component of the name -- a new style of e-high, where you're able to either interface hallucinogenic side effects with your iTunes graphical output, or you can join any IP-based E-HI network and select topics for your stoned brain to mull over. Watch out for the latter because, dude, the term "flame" takes on a *whole* new meaning.

Anyway, go to http://www.rubyonrails.org/ [rubyonrails.org] and see if you want to take part. It's amazing, and you'll definitely want to get in on it before the Bush administration starts taxing it or something ...

Re:It just works... mostly (0)

Pneuma ROCKS (906002) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252969)

I like the truthfulness of their statement, "it works mostly right, most of the time, for most of the people"

Beats the hell out of Google's Eternal Beta(TM). I still don't like it, though.

Re:It just works... mostly (1)

teslatug (543527) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253255)

Well, the point is, we've seen "it just works" turn out not to work, so who's to say that "it mostly works" is any more of a truthful statement? I'd rather have them say here it is, it's free, try it out, and take the opinion of an impartial third party.

Er (4, Interesting)

Trip Ericson (864747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252860)

Excuse me for sounding dumb, but what is Ruby on Rails? I've heard a lot about it recently, but haven't the slightest clue what it is. A little bit of background would be most appreciated.

Re:Er (1)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252873)

An application server that takes a slightly diferent approach -- recipes, etc. Personally, I prefer Zope, though Ruby is not a band language.

Re:Er (4, Informative)

BrynM (217883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252879)

Excuse me for sounding dumb, but what is Ruby on Rails? I've heard a lot about it recently, but haven't the slightest clue what it is. A little bit of background would be most appreciated.
Here's [rubyonrails.org] some fliks to explain.

Ahem... (2, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253207)

Well, I'm always curious. So, I watched the video "Evolving your database schema without sweat". I watched for 10-15 minutes where the guy types furiously for 15 minutes to avoid typing "alter table add author varchar".

I guess I just don't get it. What's the excitement?

You can't abstract too far away from the database when you get into big, complex tables and want to keep performance up. I've seen a 30-second query reduced to 50 milliseconds merely by changing the order of join in a large, complex, 12-table join on PostgreSQL.

Yet, it seems that Ruby on Rails goes to great lengths to avoid (gasp!) SQL. See Joel's great article on leaky abstractions [joelonsoftware.com] .

I don't mind SQL statements - prepared statements make it so much more manageable - but what about code changes dependent on changes to the database schema? That's something I might be interested in!

Re:Er (2, Funny)

ucahg (898110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252884)

Ruby on Rails is a fantastic new software-only method of transferring precious stones between countries, states, provinces, cities, and territories via train. .. .. ..

Or you could just go to the ruby-on-rails website instead of asking for some random's opinion on slashdot.

Watch this video (4, Informative)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252891)

This [rubyonrails.org] is a 15 min presentation someone did setting up a weblog using it. I think this example better explains it than most descriptions I've read.

Re:Watch this video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14252956)

GP asked what it is. Parent posts a link to a fscking video and gets modded informative? All he did was tell us there's a video of someone using it to set up a weblog. I don't watch web videos.

From this I'm left to conclude that it's a parody on "bloggers". ;-) I don't need a freaking video to know bloggers are idiots. Argh. I used that word twice. *bang**head**on**desk*

Is there anything else worth mentioning about it, besides that it's useless?

Re:Watch this video (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253091)

here's proof you're a moron:

"Parent posts a link to a fscking video and gets modded informative? All he did was tell us there's a video of someone using it to set up a weblog."

The "someone" is the rails creator David Heinemeier Hansson himself setting up a blog to DEMONSTRATE what rails is.

But wait, there's more proof you're a moron:

"I don't watch web videos."

OH WHOOP DE DOO. Sorry Mr. I Don't Watch Web Videos, I guess we'll have to cater to YOUR needs now won't we?

More idiocy:

"From this I'm left to conclude that it's a parody on 'bloggers'"

Uhm, no. Banging your head on your desk won't do much because your brain is clearly damaged enough.

Re:Watch this video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253093)

why always a blog?. why not a pet store?

Re:Watch this video (3, Interesting)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253125)

Since the web site is slashdotted (and the video too) could you explain what it is and why someone would want to use it?

Re:Er (3, Informative)

Btarlinian (922732) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252893)

Excuse me for sounding dumb, but what is Ruby on Rails? I've heard a lot about it recently, but haven't the slightest clue what it is. A little bit of background would be most appreciated.

Ruby on Rails is a web development framework. It provides a library for Ruby so it can be used with web development allowing it to be used in applications normally reserved for other languages.



Slashdot's big on this kind of stuff today. First the Java/everything else flamewar and now this (admittedly no flamewar.)

Re:Er (2, Informative)

noamsml (868075) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252926)

Ruby on Rails is a web application delvelopement framework built with Ruby. It includes a set of tools to direct and interpert URLs in a smart way, a bunch of database libraries making database backed apps really easy to make, and a bunch of misc tools that help web developers around stuff.

Re:Er (1)

Fishstick (150821) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252976)

"Ruby on Rails is an open-source web framework that's optimized for programmer happiness and sustainable productivity. It lets you write beautiful code by favoring convention over configuration."

so, it's mainly for giving the coder his jollies, what?

Re:Er (1)

concept10 (877921) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253085)

It could possibly turn your site http://www.rabbitears.info/ [rabbitears.info] into a web2.0 application with fancy ajax and sociable, tag-gable rabbit ears.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14252890)

Really? Everyone and their mother is going to have a fullstack framework and Ruby will just be "Ruby" again and have to compete on the merits of the language itself and that is where is it shakey (although Ruby 2.0 is supposed to alleviate some of the current aches and pains).

When? (3, Interesting)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252907)

Agree that Ruby on Rails has got some traction. But when would it get enough traction to be used as a standard framework for web apps at enterprise level?

I am working in tech division of a financial firm, and I put question to our big app dev group if anybody had worked on RoR for a project - and most people had no idea what I was talking about.

Please note that right now almost everybody in the firm uses java/j2ee - for everything - even for batch processing which can be easily done with simple perl scripts!

Re:When? (1)

Potato Battery (872080) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252961)

Might be a bit of a wait for enterprise-level implementation, unless your organization is a bold one (and it kind of sounds like it might not be). I think the "mostly" part of the phrase being quoted is not going to inspire your execs to jump in with both feet.

Probably, there will be a period while monkeys like me stick our forks in the sockets, leading the RoR Dev group/37Signals to either develop monkey-proof sockets, or lots of best practices to proliferate so that non-monkeys can learn from our mistakes.

Better yet, do some monkeying in your spare time and join the fun. Really, here's a fork!

Re:When? (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253095)

Given the conservative nature of most "enterprises" I'd say it will take another year or two. Look how long it took them go from COBOL to Java.

It's not marketed like Java was. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253162)

Don't forget that Java had Sun's marketing gorilla behind it. The industry was bombarded by Java hype, and thus people became very, very aware of it.

Ruby on Rails, on the other hand, has the force of the community behind it. It has become well-known due to word of mouth.

From my experience, many IT developers choose not to partake in software development after work. They'd rather to skiing, or watch TV, or play sports. Thus they tend to learn about new technologies only when their firm sends them to a training course. It's not surprising that they wouldn't have heard about it, especially if they're not actively involved with developing their own site.

Re:When? (3, Informative)

w42w42 (538630) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253224)

If you have to use Java, a copy-cat framework for Java is Trails [java.net] . The linked articles make it look pretty impressive.

Another relatively unknown java framework I've flirted with very recently is Stripes [mc4j.org] . It's claim to fame is that its configuration is annotation based. Dev consists of the view and action, no worrying about an xml file to sync between the two.

Re:When? (1)

dsci (658278) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253268)

But when would it get enough traction to be used as a standard framework for web apps at enterprise level?

The real answer to this is "when people start using it."

I assume by traction, you mean a large user base so there is a track record of performance/stability. It seems like a chicken/egg type of question: When will enough people use it for people to feel safe using it?

I say if it meets your needs better than another set-up, use it. And before I get a bunch of drones saying "but the boss has to like it," I'll point out that at my company, I am the boss. I don't like to micromanage the tools my folks use to get their jobs done. But hey, that's just me.

compatibility (3, Interesting)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252909)

I'd figuratively pee on my copy of Macromedia Flash if I knew a Blender 3D plugin had proliferated widely -- meaning if IE bundled it. Is this language/framework's new thinking done on the server side and to the clients it'd be business as usual, great, I'll put down my php book. What's the deal in this regard?

Re:compatibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253003)

It uses AJAX to do server side and client side logic. I don't know about 3D graphics, but it should be able to do the 2D stuff like Google Maps does.

A better solution than PHP. (3, Interesting)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252929)

Ruby on Rails provides a far superior solution for web sites than PHP in many cases. It would be excellent if it ended up usurping PHP for most PHP-based sites.

PHP's bad reputation with regards to its security is, unfortunately, harming the open source community. Managers who are considering switching to open source solutions are hearing about the security flaws in PHP, and mistakenly thinking that Apache, MySQL and Linux are insecure (due to the popular 'LAMP' association). Of course, that isn't the case by a long shot.

Regardless of what people switch to, the main focus needs to be on moving away from PHP. Ruby on Rails provides a rapidly maturing alternative for building all sorts of web sites.

Re:A better solution than PHP. (1)

sigzero (914876) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252988)

I am not fan of PHP but there isn't going to be a mass exodus away from it. As a matter of fact Zend and a couple of other companies are putting some muscle behind it.

PHP is the default because mod_php installs easily in any LAMP setup. Until another language "convinces" the large LAMP sites to include a "mod_whatever" as well, PHP will continue to move forward.

Re:A better solution than PHP. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253005)

Masturbation provides a far superior solution for web sites than Sex in many cases. It would be excellent if it ended up usurping Sex for most Sex-based sites.

Sex's bad reputation with regards to its security is, unfortunately, harming the open swinger community. Managers who are considering switching to open swinger solutions are hearing about the security flaws in Sex, and mistakenly thinking that Whoring, Blowjobs and Anal Sex are insecure (due to the popular 'MILF' association). Of course, that isn't the case by a long shot.

Regardless of what people switch to, the main focus needs to be on moving away from Sex. Masturbation provides a rapidly maturing alternative for building all sorts of web sites.

Re:A better solution than PHP. (1)

6*7 (193752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253006)

Sure, after everyone switched to Ruby and OpenBSD, stupid programmers were prevented from create insecure code ever again and the world became a better place.

BTW comparing a framework to a language is silly.

Re:A better solution than PHP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253012)

Ruby has security through obscurity. Not the best security proposition

Re:A better solution than PHP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253121)

WTF are you talking about? Last I checked Ruby had an ever more complex system than Perl's taint for security purposes, with multiple levels depending on how mistrustful of external data you want to be. It is leaps and bounds ahead of PHP.

Heh. Right. (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253048)

Few problems with that. First one is momentum. PHP has a large userbase and is currently on version 5.1.1 ... Ruby just announced 1.0. Version numbers don't mean squat except that just hitting 1.0 versus hitting a few version numbers *does* mean something.

And I hate the people who talk about the "Bad reputation with respect to security." I can write bad code in Perl, Javascript, or C++ if I want. Repeat after me folks, the security of the code is only as good as the competence of the programmer. PHP offers mechanisms and defaults that encourage good coding practices. Pick a tool and code with good programming practices. Ruby on rails won't make your code unbreakable. PHP won't make your code broken.

-everphilski-

You speak of momentum. (4, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253090)

Only an individual new to the computing industry would put much faith in "momentum".

I've been around it for decades. I remember when Honeywell and Data General had "momentum". I'd be surprised if you've ever even seen a picture of their hardware.

A bit later there was CP/M. And Apple. Apple had much "momentum" in the 1980s, only to almost hit rock bottom. At least they've been able to pick themselves up again.

There was even talk this morning about Java losing its "momentum".

Ruby on Rails could very well overtake PHP quite quickly.

While some onus does rest on developers to develop quality code, that does not mean that the language and any implementations should not take steps to limit the ability of the programmer to write faulty code.

That holds especially true for languages that are used in hostile environments, such as the WWW. Considering that Web development is touted as PHP's strong point, one would think it would have excellent security. Of course, we know from experience that that is not the case.

Ruby won't necessarily make your code perfect. But Ruby, along with sound development techniques (unit testing, for example), will result in very secure applications. The use of PHP, on the other hand, is basically an invitation for security issues. It is not a well designed language, and it is not well implemented.

Re:Heh. Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253214)

Ruby just announced 1.0

What?
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [powerpc-darwin8.0]
Ruby 2.0 isn't far away.

Re:Heh. Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253221)

Actually...Ruby is currently at version 1.8.3, "Ruby on Rails" is what just reached 1.0. PHP and Ruby both had their first public release in 1995, so it's a bit of a moot point anyway.

A rather large problem (2, Informative)

wyldeone (785673) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253188)

The main problem I see that's keeping mass adoption is ease of installation of rails apps. PHP apps are extremely simple to install. Nearly all hosting providers support it, and installation is usually comprised of uploading some files to a directory and running an install script. For RoR apps, much special configuration is needed. Even at progressive hosts that have RoR installed, like dreamhost and textdrive, people are currently having immense difficulty getting RoR apps working (look at all of the topics in their respective forums.)

As a developer RoR is a godsend, and compared with PHP development is incredible. But developer hapiness doesn't drive user adoption. Unless some things majorly change, I can't really see RoR catch on as a consumer technology, rather like the situation with J2EE today. But I can see it usurping the place of technologies like J2EE and .Net in the enterprise.

Re:A better solution than PHP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253212)

I'm sorry... every time I see your name, it's got a long, anti-PHP post attached to it. I have a really hard time buying into anything you say because your claims of insecurity in PHP are so general and derogatory. You assume that we all agree that PHP is insecure or that we're familiar with the many flaws.

Flaws exist in every language. The vast majority of insecure web applications I've worked on, tested, or broken (usually by request of the owner) are due to bad programming - not because of a flaw in the language used to build it. I think that PHP would greatly benefit from an authoritative (here's an intro to securely programming in PHP) resource for new developers, as well as a conscious move to use more secure methods in the documentation.

But considering the alternatives...

Around here, people mock everything from ASP, .Net, ColdFusion, Java, to Perl. PHP has a lot going for it. Being experienced in all of the web languages I listed, PHP is one of my favorites. More than the language, PHP also bring a culture - people are willing to open their code and consider a better way. It's already got many of the functions that I've had to add to my library for other languages. There are classes and libraries I can find to easily accomplish what I need without having to write it again.

I hate to rant like this, but I keep seeing anti-PHP posts and looking up to see your name on them. It's like you have something personal attached to this issue. It also reminds me a lot of the folks who argue that the web should be for presenting information, not for interactivity or applications.

Forget Ruby On Rails (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14252945)

Real pros use Hot Grits Down Pants!

Commercial/Enterprise use? (4, Interesting)

feNIX77 (512228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252982)

I've heard plenty about RoR on Slashdot - but to be honest, thats about where it stops. Does anyone have any experience or views deploying a medium/high volume commercial or enterprise solution using this?

I have yet to personally see RoR in either situation and I don't know anyone who has - I'm not knocking RoR, just curious how it's actually being used.

Re:Commercial/Enterprise use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253051)

I heard goatse.cx uses it!!!

Rails Day (1)

coldtone (98189) | more than 8 years ago | (#14252983)

Will there be another railsday, like the one they had last June?

Ruby on Rails more "secure" than PHP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253010)

Was Ruby on Rails designed at all with the intention of being more secure / fixing those problems commonly associated with PHP?

Re:Ruby on Rails more "secure" than PHP? (3, Informative)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253037)

Not directly.

However, many of the problems associated with PHP are just due to flaws in the design of PHP. It's more a case of PHP being worse than it should be, rather than Ruby on Rails being extremely secure.

That said, most Ruby on Rails-related code is written by far more experienced developers. As would be expected, the quality of the code is higher, and the likelyhood of security issues is vastly reduced. The trend in the Ruby community to heavily use unit testing also helps ensure that quality is a paramount consideration.

New Look? (4, Funny)

bullitB (447519) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253032)

The Ruby on Rails website has also been given a new look.

Would that be the "Service Unable: Damn You Slashdot" look?

Their site is working fine. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253050)

There is no need to spread disinformation. Their site is working just fine. I even cleared my cache, just to be sure that I'm fetching a new copy.

Re:Their site is working fine. (1)

Thundersnatch (671481) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253098)

Not so fine... it's been loading for the last 60 seconds from my perspective.

There site is loading very quickly for me. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253113)

That could be a problem with your Firefox or Internet Explorer installation.

I'm using Konqueror, and it takes at most two seconds for their site to load. I cleared and then disabled the browser cache just to ensure that wasn't getting involved.

I just tried again a few seconds ago, and it's still very responsive, considering the load it is most likely under right now. Pages are loading in 2 seconds, if even that.

Remember, Ruby on Rails is designed to be very efficient. It's a solid piece of software used by many large users who put quite a load on it.

Re:There site is loading very quickly for me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253190)

Get your mouth out of Ruby's vagina for ten seconds and stop being a fucking zealot! Their site is Slashdotted!!! *GASP* It took me two minutes to load as well. Now go cry like a little girl for a couple of seconds and everything will be okay.

Re:There site is loading very quickly for me. (1)

Thundersnatch (671481) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253215)

Riight. A "browser problem". With just that site, just right now.

So anyway, it could be a problem with my cable provider. But then again, I just tried to load it remotely from a machine in Qwest's big midwest hosting facility, right on Qwest's backbone and the main page is taking forever to load.

I think perhaps you have a transparent cache upstream from you, or you have the images cached some other way. I can get the HTML-only in about 15 seconds with wget, but no images or style sheets.

It doesn't appear to be a bandwidth issue, as there is about a 8 second delay before the response from the server, and the HTML downloads at 150 Kbps after that. I think perhaps all the bytecode interpretation and those non-OS-native threads are having some sort of negative performance effect.

Re:There site is loading very quickly for me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253258)

CyricZ is a KDE troll.

Re:New Look? (1)

netkid91 (915818) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253054)

Poor RoR got /.'ed, poor, poor them, maybe next time they could get a better server and internet connection huh???? Ever heard of http://www.mirrordot.org/ [mirrordot.org] It's MAGIC!!! Now, back to the real story, RoR looks quite promising, a blog engine in 58-lines of code certainly gets me excited.

Perl people, check out Catalyst (5, Informative)

kstumpf (218897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253067)

This is an MVC framework for Perl that resembles RoR in a lot of ways.

http://catalyst.perl.org/ [perl.org]

It's very nice so far, especially the controller portion. There's lots of addons and plugins for it, all of which are entirely optional. It's actually very open-ended and easy to extend.

I use the controller classes extensively, but write my own model, view, and support classes. Catalyst culture seems to encourage Class::DBI parentage as a base model class, but it's simple to roll your own (I hate CDBI, so I based mine on Ima::DBI instead). Your classes can work independently of Catalyst... it imposes no restrictions or inheritance constraints on you. Worth checking out.

Re:Perl people, check out Catalyst (2, Interesting)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253137)

A lot of people have begun moving away from Perl due to the slow development of Perl 6. Many are moving towards Ruby, which has drawn features and functionality quite well from Perl, and is currently moving at a quicker pace.

Now, that's not to say that Perl 6 may not encounter some degree of success in the future. Perl will most likely always have its users.

What the Perl 6 community might want to focus on now is developing the technology that will come after Ruby on Rails. Getting a step ahead in the web development arena may help bring users back to Perl from Ruby, Python and other languages and frameworks.

Re:Perl people, check out Catalyst (1)

kstumpf (218897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253237)

Try something for me. Go to a job search engine and search for "ruby". Now try the same thing for "perl". I'll hedge my bets on perl for now.

Re:Perl people, check out Catalyst (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253263)

You obviously missed the point. I am talking about Perl 6. I'm not talking about Perl 5 and earlier.

Of course you'll find more information pertaining to Perl via a search engine. Then again, recall that Perl is older than Ruby, and hit widespread use before Ruby. Your findings are not surprising at all.

also... (1)

Doktor Memory (237313) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253209)

Jifty is Coming. RSN.

Make of this what you will.

Gaydar (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253075)

I heard that using Ruby turns you into a homosexual. Can someone please confirm?

Re:Gaydar (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253116)

Yes, it is true...CyricZ [slashdot.org] is in fact a homosexual! Oh, and Amazon is giving away Elton John's gayest hits with any purchase of a Ruby book!

Give ruby a quick try first (5, Informative)

mixonic (186166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253130)

I heartily suggest that the curious among you check out http://tryruby.hobix.com/ [hobix.com] . It's a great, quick interactive introduction to ruby. You can kick around the tires (so to speak) without needing to do anything more than visit the webpage. It's a great language with or without rails.

Also a great example of Ajaxy goodness, not to buzzword it too much. It's written by the affluent and creative why. Check out his neat-o blog too: http://redhanded.hobix.com/ [hobix.com]

-mix

Why rails annoys me... (5, Interesting)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253145)

I love Ruby. Once I discovered Ruby, it's become my prefered general purpose language. I love the fact it's a pure object oriented language. I love it's consisiveness. I love it's lack of "funny" characters (for the most part).

I freakin' can't stand using Rails. I remember getting very excited about it when I first discovered it. Watching apps being developed in 15 minutes. I read all the tutorials. I even bought the book from pragmatic programmer. I studied and wrote programs for 3 weeks. And I just could never get into it. On so many occasions I just felt cheated. It was all valid ruby code, but it just didn't seem in the spirit of ruby. My namespace was cluttered with a million methods. The names of which didn't seem logical and_reminded_me_of_php_function_names_rather_than_ an_object_oriented_language (anyone who's farmiliar with rails will understand the underscores). During those 3 weeks I just couldn't enjoy programming and couldn't get into it. I tried 2 more times over the next 2 months to try it again, but the same thing.

The biggest annoyance was automated code generation. It was almost pointless for me. If I made changes to the database, I either had to a) wipe the directory and start over reimplementing my changes. Or b) go through all the MVC code and find the references to the database. Well, this is what I have to do in most other web languages anyway! So what's the advantage? Scaffolding was great at this because it did everything dynamically. However, you can't reasonably keep the scaffolding because it's not meant to be your program. It's meant to be support around your program.

The experience seemed more like programming in php with a twist of mod_perl. All the reasons I wanted to get away from perl and php for web programming were back when I tried to write a large application. Rails just doesn't seem in the spirit of Ruby. It's not bad. Don't get me wrong. But it's not this revolutionary framework so many people would have you believe. Sure, it's great to show the 15 minute video. But I'd like to see the video of someone doing a large project in rails.

Web 2.0, Baby! (4, Funny)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253159)

The Ruby on Rails website has also been given a new look.

I'm guessing more pastels. And rounded corners.

Re:Web 2.0, Baby! (2, Informative)

mixonic (186166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253180)

Actually, the new design is the opposite of pastels and rounded corners, it's alot of empty whitespace and Georgia font. Being web 1.0 is so web 2.0.

(I actually like the old design more ;-), was I too obvious? )

-mix

Re:Web 2.0, Baby! (1)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 8 years ago | (#14253204)

Yeah, I learned that at the Web 1.0 Summit [flickr.com] ...

ROR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253265)

RORLOFLMFAO!!!111one

My Fucking God (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14253267)

No wonder some people refuse to use Rails... It's bloody fucking hard to install. I've been trying to install the damn thing for over 2 hours now. suPHP is a fucking walk in the park compared to this.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>