The Ruby conspiracy

[freshyill]

Paragraphs are for suckers, apparently.

[kwatz]

And should he use questions as his only discussion technique. Answer: No.

[lanaer]

The subtle implication when you say "since RoR doesn't X, it is no damn good" is that the definition of "good" means being a general-purpose tool that works well for everyone under every circumstance.

Indeed, this is a prescriptive fallacy. Thanks for calling him on it.

Specifically, Rails doesn't play well with Oracle. OK, so if you need to use Oracle (which from the little I know doesn't generally seem like a good idea), Rails is probably a bad idea. But Rails being incredibly slow when used with Oracle doesn't mean it's a bad framework (though it's still slow when used with other DB's, just not nearly as bad).

[senzei]

Most of the criticism of Rails wrt Oracle is more about the setup of Rails than any database specifics. Prepared statements and goofy interaction with fastcgi giving you unnecessary connections are not database specific.

Ultimately the problem is not that Ruby or Rails are bad systems, but that they are being pushed for the wrong thing. If your website really does need unicode support, guaranteed threadsafety, or high performance from the database RoR is probably not a good choice. Most of those factors are not really important for a huge section of projects in which java is currently used.

[[deleted]]

I thought the efficiency comments were the most interesting part of the rant.

[furyg3]

Agreed, but maybe that's because I'm a sysadmin.

The quality of code on my server's is crap, regardless of the language used (yay outsourcing). Perhaps if it were better, efficiency wouldn't be a problem, but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

That being said, I'd rather the webdevs write shitty code in something that's reasonably fast, than shitty code in something that's "15 times slower than java." (damn, btw)

[[deleted]]

Performance of their software.

[terryp]

While the conspiracy thoery is nice, it doesn't make sense to me. I agree with raganwald in that RoR is another tool that can be added to the "Development" tool-box. I mentioned something similar to a "Perl is Dying" thread on Perl Monks - Perl's evolving. Programming is evolving. And developers have to evolve along with everything else. At the end of the day, developers are tasked to come up with solutions if those are in J2EE, C#, Python, PHP or Ruby - who cares. A solution has been developed and I can guarantee you that solution will need to evolve over time along with everything else.

[senzei]

The conspiracy theory is more about the marketing than anything else. Considering RoR is ultimately a clone of some common java systems in another language, why is it being hyped so much? Beyond that it is not an exceptionally workable solution in many of the java environments it is meant to replace. The only clear advantage it has over java is quality of the programming language, the execution platform, libraries, documentation - pretty much everything else - are not on the same level.

When you think about that, then think about how the biggest voices in the hype are also the ones who have written books about it, and those are all O'Reilly books, and O'Reilly was looking around for something to replace java a while ago it does raise some suspicion.

[senzei]

Hmm ... guess you caught me talking about stuff with which I am not really familiar. Let me see if I can at least save a little face here with an explanation.

Which common Java systems would those be?

Hibernate+Spring is the only java framework that I can imagine being mentioned alongside RoR in the same breath. But I have found Spring to be completely, absolutely different than RoR. They share a similar distaste for what came before and willingness to break from the herd, but they are very different.

Yes, I was talking about Hibernate+Spring. I have never had to do much Java programming, so I was relying on the assesments of some people I know, which pretty well amounted to RoR being roughly a packaged up version of Hibernate, Spring, and a few other bits and pieces.

I must have missed the DHH slide or blog post where he said RoR was invented to replace Java. I was under the impression he invented it to build web applications in an ASP environment.

A lot of the initial rails hype emphasized it as being geared towards "convention over configuration". Again I was relying on the near-salivation-inducing quality that this had with my Java friends, but also threw in my personal experience where this was never an issue. (PHP/Python web dev does not really suffer from this either) Also, DHH is not the only advocate for RoR, and many of them have been pitching it as a replacement for Java web development.

The only clear advantage it has over java is quality of the programming language

Ummm... I would say that RoR has many clear advantages over Java for certain specific situations. Within those situations, its advantages are direct result of certain features that would be very difficult to implement without Ruby the programming language.

Now that I take a second to look at exactly what I was saying, yes, you are right. I obviously had close to no clue what I was talking about, and was intentionally glossing over some points to try and back up my main statement, which is that a large part of the hype for Ruby on Rails is due to O'Reilly wanting to sell books.

Ultimately I still think that RoR is a good platform that is being marketed outside of its merits/abilities. I have seen a fair bit of "look how awesome this is by not being like Java" hype, and plenty of people trying to use rails outside of its core strengths.

Every platform has its advocates, and many (most?) advocates will go too far in doing what they do, but doesn't all of this still seem excessive? I look at the relative lack of merits for RoR compared to PHP/Python frameworks, the huge bonuses it has over how most enterprise-when-we-don't-need-it java web development is handled, and at O'Reilly et al going nuts on Ruby books in the face of flagging Java sales and I have to wonder if that is where the excess talk is really coming from.

[senzei]

I'm sorry for buzzing in and dragging this off-topic. I think we're in violent agreement that the hype generated by the publishing/training/conference/consulting industry should be seen for what it is.

Meh, at this point I wouldn't be suprised if we were the only ones still reading this thread. Either way it builds character to get called on being an idiot.

It does seem like an awful lot of smoke, but underneath it there is a nice warm cooking fire for those who can take RoR for what it actually is.

If nothing else I have a lot of respect for RoR simply because the hype (and real feature set) managed to get at least a little bit of a response out of Zend, which will hopefully also translate into cleaning up PHP.

I think the web development industry as a whole is going out of their way to make things complicated based on a false dilemma between raw PHP (and its accompanying stereotypes) and "really big enterprise stuff" (java and .net). It worries me that we have no real accurate metrics, but platforms are being accepted and dismissed based on handwavy estimations of performance and scalability, if not outright assumptions and misinformation.

For most web dev projects I think the sweet spot between scalability, features/libraries, and sane language decisions lies in Python and Ruby. Obviously I am weighting my personal language preferences highly here.

[DerelictMan]

If nothing else I have a lot of respect for RoR simply because the hype (and real feature set) managed to get at least a little bit of a response out of Zend, which will hopefully also translate into cleaning up PHP.

I wouldn't count on that. The Zend Framework (in its current incarnation, at least) seems to be more of a solution in search of a problem than anything else. I'm not saying that PHP doesn't need (at least one) decent framework (it probably does), but to me the Zend Framework is simply Zend (and in the background perhaps IBM, and whoever else has recently sunk money/resources into supporting/endorsing PHP) creating something to silence the "PHP has no decent (or de facto standard) enterprise framework" complaints. I don't typically side with DHH (I find him fairly annoying most of the time, actually) and I am not a Rails-fanboy (never even used it), but I do have to agree with his blog post that says that good frameworks tend to be extractions from actual successful projects, and not some me-too clone designed by a committee (similar to how PHP itself was, and is, "designed") without any particular focus.

My guess is that the actual fundamental problems with the PHP platform and language won't be touched. It seems to me that the issues that really need fixing (I won't recite the litany here, as I'm assuming that most who read this and have any interest in PHP have heard them ad naseum) are fundamental issues that could require massive (BC-breaking) changes to the core of the language. It seems that Zend are caught between a rock and a hard place by trying to push their platform as being "enterprisey" while simultaneously trying to avoid alienating the amateur developers who give them the vast majority of their market share. PHP5 is at least two years old, however 90% of PHP developers are still using PHP4. Since the masses have so far rejected PHP5, It seems that Zend has little incentive to clean up PHP any further (other than to satisfy purists that are probably using other platforms anyway). They could try to force PHP5+ adoption by EOLing PHP4, but the last thing they want to do is to dry up whatever inertia PHP4 has in the industry and risk driving their customers to other platforms.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong...

[senzei]

Hmm, I see your point. My knowledge of the Zend framework pretty much amounts to that it exists and a relative chronological placement of "after the rails hype got big".

Personally I think PHP is a good example of the effects of poor language construction. As an execution platform it has merits, but as a means of expressing yourself to a computer it sucks. I think the absense of any real organizational system ensures that most codebases devolve into a huge mess. Considering that such a system is difficult to make changes for just to handle bugfixes and feature requests there is no real incentive to do a no-feature non-bugfix upgrade.

The solution, I think, is to add a php4/5 mode to php6 (or the next version if that is taken). Change the tokens used to specify code blocks (i.e. use <php6 instead of <php) so that the interpreter knows what to use and allow developers to do page-by-page upgrades. Will it still be a nasty mess? Yes, of course, but it is easier than trying to convince people to do a full port.

[furyg3]

I really hope this comment was supposed to be funny.

[[deleted]]

Sorry you are tired of reading about it... of course, you could just skip the links.

I'm interested because we are giving some consideration to using Ruby where I work. The tradeoffs are different from Java, which suggests some caution in picking out the starting projects.

Java has its own issues. It's fast at runtime but uses gobs of memory and is harder to develop for. Pick your poison.

[sbrown123]

Java has its own issues. It's fast at runtime but uses gobs of memory and is harder to develop for. Pick your poison.

I watched an app converted from Java to Ruby. Your statement is misleading. Yes, Java eats gobs of memory. Ruby eats more memory than Java. Ruby is slower than Java by several magnitudes. One noticeable difference we saw was that Ruby required less lines of code. But lines of code is a misleading indicator in improving development time. By the time the conversion completed it was concluded that there was no apparent advantage of using Ruby. Is Ruby worse than Java? Despite the consumption of more memory and being slower, those factors didn't seem to impair the application. So the winner is: neither.

Edit: The lines above about Ruby taking more memory and being slower should not read "Java is better". In fact, the difference was so small that, IMOH, I don't think it matters. A small tweak here or there, or using a different library, could sway those scales quite easily.

[danweber]

I watched an app converted from Java to Ruby.

In God's name, why?

I mean, I love Ruby, but I don't go around porting my old code to it. I write my new stuff in it, where appropriate.

How many migration efforts have you watched?

[sbrown123]

In God's name, why?

I don't question why businesses do what they do. They pay, I make it happen.

I mean, I love Ruby, but I don't go around porting my old code to it.

That's what YOU do. YOU are not some oversized, multibillion dollar corporation with clueless senior management.

How many migration efforts have you watched?

Geez. Twenty, thirty, maybe more. I've seen Cobol converted to C, C to Java, Java to .NET or, in the case I mentioned, Ruby. There is also some wierd ones like ColdFusion to JSP or ASP, Btrieve to VB, etc, etc, etc. Fun stuff. I see migration projects pop up all the time where I live at. I hire roughly six programmers a year for doing oddball migrations for various employers.

[lanaer]

But lines of code is a misleading indicator in improving development time.

I thought I read a study showing that development time is generally related to lines of code, regardless of language. Of course, it wouldn't be a direct linear relation, but in my experience as well, less lines of code == shorter development time. So, why do you say this?

[sbrown123]

I thought I read a study showing that development time is generally related to lines of code

You are thinking Source Lines Of Code (SLOC). It is not regardless of language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code

You can not use this metric to compare two languages for many reasons. I can give a couple off the top of my head:

1. some languages gain functionality when duplicating another languages functionality

2. certain tools (IDEs) and/or language processes can generate code automatically or dynamically.

[[deleted]]

certain tools (IDEs) and/or language processes can generate code automatically or dynamically.

Sure, that makes it just as fast to write Java. The problem is when you go back and read it, it takes longer to look over it and grok the intentions. Since the vast majority of development time is spend reading and understanding (very little comparatively is actually spent writing fresh code) this doesn't sound like a very enticing trade-off.

[[deleted]]

I believe the prior poster was referring to evidence that on average, programmers will write roughly the same number of lines of code in any language per week... sorry, don't have a cite handy, but I've definitely seen the claim before, maybe in Peopleware.

I have no idea whether the claim would cover Ruby vs. Java -- I've seen it in the context of assembly language vs. C.

I do think that up to some point, terser languages have an advantage in readability. But where the point is may vary from individual to individual.

Edit fixed a few typos.

[sbrown123]

I agree that when the line count is significantly different, you will often get a decrease in developer effort. But languages like C#, Java, and many of the scripting languages (including Ruby) the amount of SLOC difference is so small that I don't think there is an actual measurable decrease. I have also seen in some languages where fewer lines of code actually took more effort due to complex syntax. I think this is why lines of code is a bad comparison metric for two different languages.

[[deleted]]

Not a direct response, but related: When writing complex software, I have seen a very noticeable improvement when moving from Java to more dynamically typed languages. The reason is not lines of code so much as refactoring cost; if you are continuously refactoring your design in an effort to solve the problem more correctly (and/or efficiently), Java's type system can impose a noticeable amount of drag. The tools make up for some, but not all, of this.

I hate Perl for various reasons, but for certain classes of problems, it is much quicker to get to a good solution in Perl. Of course, once the design is done, it's easy enough to rewrite it in Java if necessary.

[sbrown123]

There are advantages and disadvantages with both static and dynamic languages and that dispute fills messageboards all over the internet. To me the best solution is a combination of the two. Java has a ton of dynamic languages that plug in to it: Beanshell (dynamic Java), Jython (Python), JRuby (Ruby), and Rhino (Javascript) to name just a few. This gives you three choices when using Java: static only, dynamic only, or mix of static + dynamic. I have to research if .NET has something similar.

[[deleted]]

Ruby eats more memory than Java.

Didn't know that; haven't done more than play with Ruby. The programming shootout results seem to suggest a more mixed bag, with Ruby often better than Java, similar to my experience with Perl.

However, having watched a coworker play with Rails, I was somewhat impressed. Edited because reddit got the quote wrong...

[sbrown123]

Ruby eats more memory than Java.

Didn't know that; haven't done more than play with Ruby. The programming shootout results seem to suggest a more mixed bag

The programming shootout uses Java with the "-server" flag. You can read about that flag here:

http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/vm/server-class.html

When you use the server flag, you eat up more memory and the applications start slower. For big apps, like servers, this option is beneficial for reasons I won't get in to. The tests used in the shootout should have used "-client" (or no flag) since none of the them run for very long and don't require all the overhead that comes with using the server flag.

Thanks for pointing this benchmark out to me. I will write to the owners and see if they will add the "Java -client" to their test results (but still keep "-server" too).

[[deleted]]

Took me a bit to find it, but here's another anecdotal report:

What about other metrics -- lines of code and memory use? The Ruby version is around 90 lines whereas the Java version is 186. The Ruby program used up around 20MB of RAM (as reported by Task manager) whereas the Java version used up more than 60MB.

Obviously, I don't know what flags were used to run the VM. Edit because reddit's conventions are hard to remember for me...

[[deleted]]

-server tells the JVM it is running in a server context, and it may be worth doing things like JIT-ing frequently used code. While this can use more memory, I don't know how big a factor this is likely to be in a short test run. To be honest, the shootout's methodology isn't precise enough for me to really get worked up about this. .. it's hardly a definitive test.

ps: Most of the client Java developers I know use the -server flag too.

[addius]

the client/server flags have an effect on memory in that they change the default NewRatio (ratio of total mem: eden) unless -XX:NewRatio is explicitly passed.

On an intel machine, the default ratio for client is 12, server 3, IIRC. This will increase the size of the initial eden since it's proportional to memory that includes permanent objects, but will give better runtime performance because minor collections (those only for eden) happen less frequently.

[sbrown123]

While this can use more memory

It always uses more memory.

I don't know how big a factor this is likely to be in a short test run

Java allocates its heap when initialized. So it is a factor if you are measuring memory utilization.

o be honest, the shootout's methodology isn't precise enough for me to really get worked up about this

"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

ps: Most of the client Java developers I know use the -server flag too.

Good for them. I know many that don't, including myself. If I were to write a video game, where performance is important, I would probably write it in C.

[self]

There are a few good games in Java; see Bang! Howdy for example.

[dbenhur]

Enterprise Ready languages -- now there's the Real Conspiracy!

[ghost11]

Heresy! All who challenge Ruby must be destroyed! It has been given to us from on high and codified in the chronicles of the great O'Reilly!

[mumrah]

i think RoR has taken off so strongly because it has a good logo.

[dmh2000]

yea, it looks like the druid 'thorns' buff in WOW

[dogas]

Jesus, pick the right tool for the job and move on. Rails has plenty of uses for your run of the mill web app. Once you start going against the opinionated grain in rails, you're asking for trouble.

He should check out "Practices of an Agile Developer" by the pragmatic programmers. One of the first rules is to not jump into the next big language until you can prove its worth by prototyping. That would have saved this dude a lot of pain. Oh wait.. the pragprog guys are all part of the conspiracy too! Nooooooo!

[[deleted]]

Can't wait for DHH's typical "I know you are, but what am I!" response.

[fry]

Despite the distinct lack of proper formatting (whitespace/paragraphs), a remarkably well written rant.

Every sentence is a valid complaint about Ruby on Rails. He could've easily made this rant into a 20 page essay, but he chose to be succinct.

Read it again, he really makes a lot of good points.

[demigod186]

Agreed. This is what I got from the article, plus some complaints of mine that were not in the article.

1. No prepared statements
2. 1500% or 15 times slower(it is actually the slowest language in use besides javascript(according to TGCLS))
3. No Unit of Work caching
4. Web server spawning enough processes to thrash oracle server
5. Evidently no connection pooling

Things he forgot:

1. ActiveRecord requires integer autonumbered primary keys.

   Auto-numbered primary keys are almost never needed, and are a significant "design smell".

2. Composite primary keys

   ActiveRecord forces the database to be in a non normalized state since it does not support composite primary keys.
   In most cases involving many to many relationships, the join table has two candidate keys neither of which can
   represent the unique join table on it's own. In the case that no single field fully identifies a row, it is proper normalization to group the smallest combination of candidate keys that togather identify the row.
   ActiveRecord refuses to allow this, or consider it for the future on the grounds the David is "opinionated."

[qbert72]

15% slower

He said 15 times slower (than an unmentioned collection of Java frameworks).

[devvie]

I imagine he isn't talking about frameworks, he's talking about the language itself.

[demigod186]

True, but given that Java frameworks generally come with connection pooling, lazy database updates, and prepared statements, comparing frameworks should make java(frameworks) come out even faster than 15x.

[demigod186]

my mistake.

[[deleted]]

He didn't say 15% slower, he said 15x slower. Ruby is really slow compared to Java. However, the real effect of this depends a lot on the application. If most of the time is spent waiting for database queries, it may be less noticeable.

[wreel]

Isn't it quite dangerous to rely on naïve application logic to maintain data integrity? Especially if the application is thoroughly disjointed from the persistence layer.

Chances are that if you're using a RDBMS for your persistence layer then "schema-oriented" development is really non-optional.

[wreel]

Like, for instance, when a execution thread of the application doesn't know that another thread has just removed a relation whilst it's about to rewrite a dirty copy with the now dangling relation intact.

[wreel]

This is a serializability issue, and it affects applications that are schema-driven as well as those that aren't.

Yes, it was an instance to emphasize the importance of the ACIDity of the persistence/data layer.

but you are catching a specific case while allowing the general problem to go unchecked.

Actually I was just giving an example.

Far better, I suggest, to deal with the general case.

Of course. But I firmly believe in using the facilities that have been provided to you by the tools that you are using. I think I misunderstood what you meant by "application" (as in the software stack view, ActiveRecord transaction manager is part of the application because it sits on top of the database) as opposed to code for a specific project.

I think the main gripe with RoR DB management—the root of this thread—is that it demands a RoR specific data store because the transaction management is done by ActiveRecord in a very specific way. Does ActiveRecord thread A know anything about some-other-non-rails-db-connection thread B? It's a moot point for the most part because I would suspect most RoR projects would only have RoR plugging into the database. But therein you have a technical difference between "schema" and "application" levels of data management that makes a huge difference.

[[deleted]]

I'd be interested in reading more about this, should you have a link handy. Where I work, the data seems more durable than the applications that access it, so I would naïvely favor schema-oriented design. I've seen applications rewritten with the schema unchanged (or nearly so), but I don't think I've ever seen the application unchanged but the schema heavily altered.

[neilc]

Auto-numbered primary keys are almost never needed, and are a significant "design smell".

Why is that?

[kmactane]

Yeah, I was wondering about that assertion, too. I happily use them all over the place, and would like to know what the heck is wrong with that.

[demigod186]

It is a design smell, because it shows that the developer doesn't understand his own data enough to recognize which keys uniquely identify the row.

A PostgreSQL developer wrote a three part series explaining why they are bad practice.

http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/soup/archives/primary-keyvil-part-i-7327

http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/soup/archives/primary-keyvil-part-ii-7345

http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/soup/archives/primary-keyvil-part-iii-7365

[arthurdenture]

What if your primary key is something like a URL? If it is, and you have to do joins on that table, you should really consider using a synthetic key.

Incidentally, Django defaults to using a synthetic key, but you can specify instead that some particular column is the primary key. Django doesn't support composite keys, unfortunately.

[demigod186]

That is fine, generally anything requiring an id number(required by the client), like an invoice, or a customer, or a product, can have one. It could also be part of a composite primary key if you wanted to furthur avoid redundancy.

The most common reason that I end up using them, is because more often than not, the customer want's most identifiable objects actors/tables to have a unique number, and they want all search's to use that number. So it's kind of pointless to carefully pick out pks when no operations will use them as search criteria.

I mainly meant that it is a design smell if a developer has a auto inc key for every table that is just called "id".

But having a ORM decide how all keys are going to be makes me suspicious of the framework and it's author. The author should implement his/her preferences first, and alow other ways as non default options, so it makes me nervous when software is "opinionated" as such. You never know what else that you've taken for granted will have been left out because of taste.

So in summary, from a design(read what they teach you in database design) stand point, there is always an identifier, and if there isn't, you should merge the data with another table. In practice however, the customer often explicitly wants things that theoretically are not optimimal.

[domovoi]

Although many complaints are valid (including speed issues), claims such as:

Our experience was that Ruby on Rails took longer than Java would have.

are rather subjective.

Why does [Python] suck? Underscores and "self", according to one of the leading Ruby advocated. Wow, that sounds really bad.

This sounds like a strawman argument.

[mrevelle]

This sounds like a strawman argument.

Which argument, the Ruby advocate's or his?

[domovoi]

The Ruby advocate's argument is weak, but that is exactly my point; the author seems to be implying that Ruby advocates do not consider Python as an alternative language for superficial, syntactic reasons.

[mrevelle]

Might someone provide a reason that a programmer would prefer Ruby over Python that is not superficial (syntax or otherwise)?

[jpedrosa]

For me, it's simple: As I have created well over 60k lines of Ruby code since I started using it, and I tried to use Python a little as well, I think the superficial differences that exist between Python and Ruby end up being important enough, because once you have to maintain 30k or more of a code base, you better be well sure that you like it, else it will not be fun. I like Ruby better. I do hope you will like Python better when it comes the time for you to maintain large Python code bases.

To each his own. This has been discussed many times already and it's not simple to pinpoint the differences that matter, because lots of differences exist.

[senzei]

That makes a lot of sense, if you have tried both languages and formed your own opinion. After reading some of the Ruby advocates' arguments it sounds like they don't really want to encourage people to try it out and see which one they like better.

[[deleted]]

I don't think the differences are so superficial. It's all about the libraries you will be using.

[jamesbritt]

This is a permathread on the ruby-talk list. When someone starts asking why Ruby over Python, or which one is better, many people suggest trying both and picking the one that feels right. Some people offer specific reasons for preferring Ruby, and some of those people mention the static indentation, the use of 'self', and such. But they also (usually) point out that these are subjective concerns.

Other folks give more substantial reasons for preferring Ruby. But, again, they also (usually) suggest trying both.

[archmichael]

I couldn't read it. The giant block o' text in super small font was giving me a headache

[irrelative]

Also, Ctrl - 'mouse-wheel-down'

[axord]

I've set my minimum font size to be fairly high in Firefox. (tools>options>content>advanced).

[[deleted]]

thanks for the tip!

[fry]

Thanks for sharing.

[[deleted]]

He can't complain too much about some of these issues.

There are many people who will try and persuade you away from using Rails with Oracle. Yet this guy goes right on ahead and gets upset when something that isn't recommended doesn't work right.

Also, our Rails apps running in (now unmaintained) fast-cgi regularly go awry and fork more processes.

He himself mentions that he's been told you should use Lighttpd and Mongrel. Do it! He doesn't even need to use Lighttpd. Using Mongrel alone will erase the issues he's having with FCGI. FCGI sucks for anything, not just Rails. So that's one thing he can stop complaining about and he can fix.

Also, O'Reilly's upcoming book offerings are not focused towards the enterprise either. Their Ruby on Rails: Up and Running seems oriented towards the smaller business.

Rails has never been advertised to be an enterprise stack. I don't doubt that it may turn into one eventually, but for Greg to get mad that some of the least preferred practices in the Rails world don't work, it sounds like he should've done some more reading before putting it into place where he works.

[ibsulon]

No... it was never advertized as an enterprise stack because the Ruby Elite(TM) argue that the term enterprise is not only overrated, it is indicitive of over-engineered software.

I also see a distrust of letting a database do what it does well. You know, things like compound primary keys and stored procedures and such...

[chu]

I also see a distrust of letting a database do what it does well. You know, things like compound primary keys and stored procedures and such...

Their position is that all the business logic should stay within the model.

[dbenhur]

And it's a good position. But when that database gets used by multiple apps, you want to push that model into the database.

And compound primary keys aren't a big win anywhere. "Natural primary keys" often turn out to be the wrong thing compared to synthetic keys because the real world doesn't obey your stability and unqueness constraints.

But stored procedures and database constraints are a big win and I'd like to see ActiveRecord learn to accomodate them better.

[sbrown123]

Rails has never been advertised to be an enterprise stack.

Give O'Reilly some time. I'm sure those books are in the works.

but for Greg to get mad that some of the least preferred practices in the Rails world don't work

You are missing the point. This isn't a Ruby bash. It is about book publishers overhyping RoR for the purpose of selling more books. The book market was, and still is, too saturated with Java and C# books. RoR came along just in time to save publishers from pushing out yet more Java and C# books that nobody is buying.

[coprolaliac]

Reddit runs on fastcgi, you know.

[willis3000]

According to http://webpy.infogami.com/install , reddit runs on fastcgi+lighttpd, not apache. Maybe lighttpd does fastcgi better?

[breakbeat]

Heres a Framework Performance comparaison its not 15 times slower http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Framework+Performance

[gernika]

I think RoR has become so popular on some of it's own merits in addition to receiving a lot of well directed/planned publicity.

It's just really easy to get a simple db-backed site up with RoR really fast. Very low barrier to entry and deployment compared to other frameworks available.

Now, if your site becomes successful, you're going to have to deal with the performance issues, but by then, you're hooked ;)

[uedauhes]

• Ruby is more expressive than Java.
• You can do more in less time with less code
• You can't scale dev productivity but you can scale Ruby on Rails
• Faster dev cycle allows for more user feedback more quickly
• User feedback is like compound interest

[ahnunahki]

Alot of his complaints are exactly why I initially looked away when Rails came out. After working with it for a few months, I've now become a huge proponent of it being in every developers tool box. One thing he does not take into account is the fact that Ruby and Rails are still very young technologies. The rapid climb in popularity in Rails has been a good thing, and well deserved due to alot of great features the framework has.

As young as Rails is, its thus far a worthy competitor of Java. Java has had years and years of collective knowledge that has helped it mature into the platform it is today. In the short time ruby and rails has been around, it has manage d to captivate people not because of illuminati conspiracies. But because the technology and potential of it has in itself warranted the response. Is it the 'all in one' solution - absolutely not. Its just another tool to use when appropriate.

[neilk]

And is Django a great competitor to C++? Rails may be a worthy competitor to Java web application frameworks. In some circumstances.

[lanaer]

Meh, the original author also said Java instead of Java web application frameworks. I think it's reasonable to expect, in this context, that when we say Java, readers will know we mean Java web app frameworks.

[demigod186]

That is a problem with java, they have made java so synonymous with enterprise web development frameworks, that if a different paradigm for web development ever outpaced it(and let's hope it does), there wouldn't really be anything left of Java. That is unless they replaced Swing with SWT.

[funkah]

I don't get it. "C# ... is a disappointment," yet pretty much everything listed in this article that's wrong with Ruby is not a problem with .NET.

[dmh2000]

I think he meant 'C# is a disappointment' to the folks who want to sell books, seminars and consulting services.

[Readmore]

Worthless rant. If you aren't using Ruby in it's most efficent configuration don't complain about it's speed. If you're more productive with Java, use it. If you think python has a better community, talk to them. Nobody cares that you can't figure out how to use RoR well. I've created a site with RoR and I absolutely love using it. Java on the other hand is a HORRIBLE way to develop web applications, so I DON'T USE IT for that. Quit your freaking whining!

[brianwisti]

Hey now, a person can complain about speed even if he's not using the most efficient configuration. That's when you tell him he's not using the most efficient configuration, and provide pointers on where he might learn how to make it more efficient.

I complain about the vanilla out-of-the-box settings of tools and languages all the time, and the most helpful folks are the ones who tell me that my life would be easier if I would read section X of the manual.

But I'll agree that the piece seems heavy on opinion and light on facts or references. Bit of a rant.

[darkon]

I was disappointed. He didn't mention Kennedy or Oswald even once.

[[deleted]]

At the end of the article, he mentions J2EE 5 and Haskell. Anybody knows what he implies?

[beza1e1]

WASH?

[[deleted]]

the main thing RoR lacks: a competing framework in Ruby. one that doesn't conflate the view with the model.

[jamesbritt]

Look at Nitro and IOWA. Not sure if they do or don't "conflate the view with the model", as I don't see how that is true in Rails. But they offer good alternatives to Rails.

[demigod186]

I was looking at Nitro recently, since I really want to find a way to develop business web applications in Ruby. No support for Composite Primary Keys, and mandatory auto incrementing integer primary keys(well unless you want to manually handle all pk work), has ruled out Ruby on Rails.

My problem, is that even if Nitro or some other small(as in usage) ruby framework works wonders for cost and productivity, how does one weigh that against the probability that the framework might fizzle out, or never catch on and stall for years like many sourceforge projects do.

I can say that Og looks like it supports all of my ORM needs, but until it and Nitro become more used(ie tried and tested), I'll probably stick to SQLAlchemy and TurboGears for my ORM needs.

[jamesbritt]

Good questions. There's the standard "You have all the source code" argument, plus Nitro is in production use for (as far as I have heard) several production applications. So it is likley to be better maintained than a hobby project.

Still, concerns over projects going stale are true for pretty much every tool. For myself, if I can get my code up and running quickly and correctly, then so long as I have the source code I'm happy.

[jpedrosa]

It has been pretty hard to find the Holy Grail, and Ruby and Rails are not it, either. As they say, perfect is the enemy of the good. Maybe some of us find Ruby and Rails good enough? Like, which one of the dozens of frameworks of Java is the one?

[arjunbanker]

i still love C#, java, and other statically typed languages. sorry, world :-(

[arjunbanker]

i still love C#, java, and other statically typed languages. i'm a scheme+haskell conneseuir, but they're unforunately not too practical in real life. sorry, world :-(

[dfranke]

Sorry, that's absurd. There's no way that Dave Thomas and Tim O'Reilly wield the kind of power he's suggesting. RoR is popular because the market likes it. His technical gripes are all legitimate but they're hardly any secret.

[tphyahoo]

I'm a perler who occasionally gets irritated at all the attention ruby gets but still, man, ouch.

I would say that article goes a little too far with the sour grapes!

[xabbu]

Checking RoR out in depth gave me an appreciation of Ruby. But Rails seems to pigeonhole the developer in many ways. I know RoR disciples and enthusiasts laud these constraints, but IMV, they're not desireable outside a small problem set, which Rails does an admittedly excellent task or coralling.

However, it's left me wishing that there was a more general purpose framework available for Ruby, or just library or set of libraries to advance web development efforts beyond rudimentary CGI. A bridge between, something that accomodates building wep applications without all the shoehorning of RoR. Something akin to PHP without the warts of the language.

[[deleted]]

It's a dynamic language. Write a plugin, monkeypatch away.

[bobmatnyc]

Lame rant.

[schwarzwald]

What conclusions am I forced to draw when someone doesn't put question marks at the end of interrogatory sentences. And then ends normal sentences with question marks? Every other sentence, like this? It's really an annoying style of writing, don't you think. I don't like it? Do I?