Blog Documentation Book a Demo
Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Ruby on Rails

omfgomfg New
edited October 2005 in Vanilla 1.0 Help
Anyone played around with this yet?

I just installed it on tiger, it seems to be incredibly powerful... are there any major shortcomings I should be aware of?
«1

Comments

  • DeniedDenied New
    i eat ruby on rails for breakfast. or maybe that's fruit loops.

    ..

    either way, good stuff.
  • nathannathan
    I actually went to a ruby on rails conference yesterday (6 out of 5 stars on the geek-o-meter)! It looks really nice. The only PROBLEM, that was mentioned was that for every database change (reference changes in the actual code), you had to restart the server before they would take effect. The rest is EASY. Very powerful, VERY simple. Let me know how you go with it.
  • jonezyjonezy New
    so is it like a database mapper or something? i've been playing around with some .net stuff (.net tiers, llbgen) that generates objects that represent your db for you.
  • lechlech ✭
    jonezy, it's like php or any j2ee framework, except it's touted to be 50x easier to program for. It's quite impressive.
  • DeniedDenied New
    watch this rails video, jonezy
  • jonezyjonezy New
    edited July 2005
    wow that dude talking in that video is way too excited.
  • DeniedDenied New
    whoops!
  • jonezyjonezy New
    LOL! whoops look it worked see everything i am not doing?
  • jonezyjonezy New
    so basically it's MVC framework
  • lechlech ✭
    yes. Just a bit easier to code for, not a total replacement yet, but something to envy and look forward to.
  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    I was thinking I'd use it for my next project, but every time I go to download it and install it, I get confused. I'd be installing and developing on Windows, then launching on Linux w/ apache2 - so it's double complicated there. Plus, I noticed that it's not a strongly typed language, and I was kind of looking forward to that (I had assumed it was).
  • lechlech ✭
    Yeah, each time I've attempted to install it on my local server here, the setup threw me for a loop so I never got around to it. But when I get the chance I'll give it another go once I figure it all out. It's not meant to be a really strongly typed language. It's pretty verbose in terms of writing a function that's pretty easy to read and understand what it does the first time you read it. I'm not even familiar with the language but watching some of those videos, wrapping your head around the logic involved seemed too damn easy.
  • precidprecid
    I think I'm going to play with this a bit. If nothing else, it seems like it would be good for little things I need all the time like blogs and news updates.
  • tsunamijonestsunamijones
    One of my biggest concerns right now is getting Rails to deal with properly normalized db tables. To use join tables requires the developer to code sql statements. While that's no big deal, it defeats one of the benefits of Rails. Also, until Rails can run on IIS, I'll never make any headway at my work, a complete Windows shop. Rails could save us a huge amount of time, but we'll never look at it with these infrastructure requirements
  • tfsmagtfsmag
    well from the comments here it seems like more trouble than it's worth
  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    My biggest concern is that I'll paint myself into a corner. Applications always start out simple, but in a corporate environment with wacky business logic it can get pretty damn convoluted - and the programming language needs to have the flexibility to handle that.
  • moemoe
    edited July 2005
    i agree with mark.
    i looked at rails and, well, it left some giggles.

    after reading all the hype around it i somewhat assumed that it would solve my problems for me before i even think of them.

    well, that was not the case. after fiddling around (admittedly only wrote a small form, chained to another) i decided that i would not (at least in the current state) be comfortable with it for the following reasons:

    - i have no idea how it scales and i haven't seen any benchmarks, yet.
    fastcgi is supported but i have seen little documentation about how the
    abstraction layer actually gets stuff done. i assume it bangs the database at
    least as bad as any other framework of the breed (e.g. java hibernate) for
    anything involving more than one table.

    - anywhere i looked it seemed that they are most proud of that in rails you can
    write that little two-page app in only one and a half line of code.
    i have yet to find an example of a really complex application realized in rails.
    their little MVC generator seems cute but i think i'd quickly grow out of their
    assumed pattern and need things (custom session handling, db
    cascade/clustering) for performance or other reasons that would require
    naaasty hacks to their framework.

    - i find the hype pretty annoying. instead of all the backrubbing (after reading a
    few rails docs i somewhat felt like some marketing-droid jizzed on me) i'd
    actually prefer to read about some of the downsides and limitations.
    the guys who designed it either didn't make the compromises that every
    framework-designer has to make consciously, or they deliberately avoid to
    mention them. all i get is a blurry "ROR is aimed at small to medium sized
    applications". that's fine, can you elaborate?

    after all, rails left the impression of a neat little toolbox to me.
    but actually, more toy than tool, sorry.

    sorry if this came out a bit harsh but as said, the amount of hype they get annoys me a bit.
  • jesusphreakjesusphreak
    This guy's voice is killing me! I want to watch the presentation but its hard for me to get all the way through it. I'm not just saying that, either, I mean it.
  • ichigoichigo
    yeah a hype might be good but it is dangerous too and can ruin things. as almost every framework...rails is good if you do applications the rails way...but if you dont...you will have to work harder than before...so if you are interested in rails...you should check it out and learn what it is able to do...and if you want to build something that matches the things rails can do good...then it is really a great experience to develop a web application...because rails does things for you that you would have to do yourself....mostly pretty annoying things. if you dont like ruby you can watch "django" (http://djangoproject.com) which is a python framework with some similarities to rails... for me...rails has changed the way i build web apps...and it made me really more productive...if it is able to scale? well i would say yes... look at web apps like basecamp (http://basecamphq.com) or 43things. (http://43things.com) or at typo (http://typo.leetsoft.com) which is a pretty cool blogging software done in rails (it is also used to drive the rubyonrails weblog)
  • franklin_mintfranklin_mint New
    Django is awesome. I like that it takes advantage of Postgres, and I love that it generates admin interfaces from database tables. God, that shit can be so tedious, and anything that makes it go away until the end when it's time to streamline things is welcome.,
This discussion has been closed.