What is Digg?78 Comments
- trentrez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31The flip side however is when apparently simple concepts or functions are shorthanded in such a way that it makes them non obvious how they function at first glance. Five or Six lines of semi human readable code is much better and requires a lot less documentation than one line of perhaps clever and ingenuitive yet unintentionally obfuscated code.
In effect short code does not always equal clean readable code. And lengthy code does not always indicate sloppy code. Code length should not be an indicator of code quality. - Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Because we all know that few lines of good == great product.
- Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11For those of you who want to skip the blog post: http://beast.caboo.se/
- Elohir, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Less code = less bloat, less code complexity, less bug potential, quicker debugging...
Elegant code is not only rare but damn near an art form, good for them. - hometoast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10while I agree, your example is irrelevant because ruby's statements are delimted by lines, like visual basic.
- DrSkrud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9That's pretty neat! I've been waiting for something like this.
- riklomas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Maybe they should have spent more lines of code fixing blindingly obvious bugs like "9 hours ago ago" and "1 days ago"...
- alder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"And it runs slow too. Oh wait, its written in Ruby."
Have you considered that it's lagging because it's getting Digged by thousands of Diggers besides you...?
Ah, but that would not be as inflammatory/FUDy, I guess! - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I think you all missed the point of the project....
It's not to create a super enterprise-quality forum system. It was to show how simple and elegant Ruby on Rails can make things. Digg++.
...and judging from the comments so far, half of you bashing the project clearly have never even used RoR. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11lol, just because somthing take less code doesnt mean its good
u can put everything on same 1 line, compilers will still be happy
maybe ruby should concentrate on writing better docs, wasted and hour of my life trying to install ruby with lighhtpd - Kam3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This could be very useful for situations where you want a forum integrated well into an existing website, something that can be difficult or messy to do with most of the PHP forums out there, good though some of them are. This will be much easier to customise too.
Also, this stuff about Rails sites been inherently unstable or lacking in features (whoreman) is just FUD. If you need to write less code you have time to put in more features, since switching to Rails I've been able to deliver much more feature rich applications to my clients. The reason many high profile Rails sites are low on features has nothing to do with Rails itself, its more about a philosophy of anti-bloat and that applies to many PHP,Perl,.Net Web 2.0 sites equally. The stuff I've been working on in Rails is often heavy on features and I can't imagine managing that complexity without a framework like Rails. I honestly think Django would be just as capable but that comes down to my personal language preference. - mike_douglas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7homeracer: A semi-colon can be used as an optional statement delimiter.
ex. puts "hello"; puts "world"
Although, this technique isn't used at all(?) in the code. - hometoast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8NO idea why trentrez was dugg down. That is a point that all programmers need to realize.
- mh10190, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Goddam, these people are still testing. And this is the 1st Rails forum app, give them a break.
All im hoping for is some nive AJAX features.
Web 2.0! (another angel died) - protiek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Welcome to WEB 2.0!!!!1
- danski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5But it's not achieved in that amount of code, is it? It's achieved in 500 lines of application-specific code plus thousands and thousands of abstracted framework lines. If it's a testament to anything, it's the framework.
* PS: fair play to the developers for setting an old-school technical challenge like a line limit! - hometoast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I digg it because not only is it very few lines of code, but I like the minimaliist feel to it. Seems like it would integrate into other packages very easily.
- WhiskerTheMad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Looks ghetto. I'd rather have more lines of code, with more style."
You're the kind of guy who would design an airplane by picking out the color first. - hometoast, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6yes, why try new things for the sake of doing them. dolt.
- rsanheim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, its really just in development right now, so there isn't a "stable" release. I have downloaded from trunk, tho, and it seems pretty solid. Obviously they are still ironing out bugs.
- klaruz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3catoutfit: I'd try the book "Ruby for Rails", it will get you into both the language and the framework. I've read most of it, and it wasn't bad at all. You could also check out the "PickAxe Book" and the "Agile Web Development with Rails" book. Another option is to hit one of the many ruby and rails tutorials on the net, along with the API docs once you know enough to get going.
The screen cast is just flashy stuff meant to get you interested, the real meat comes from learning Ruby and reading the books. - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wow....you all were able to embed scripts in a beta application with no inline script detection. I'm incredibly impressed...
You guys are so l33t.
* starts slow clap * - Grimboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, but getting even a simple board in that number of lines is rather impressive. It's not mindblowing, but impressive none the less.
The fact is that in frameworks you DO write less code, but more time is spend thinking. In the end you nearly always still end up with +time and as you get more used to the framework (and it will take more than just learning it to get comfortable with it) you'll end up having to think about it less because you'll automatically start mapping your ideas onto the structure of the framework. - RonaldLewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Great, clean example of what can be accomplished with rails. I like it.
- lolage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd hit it.
- WarMace, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4File size is a good value to put next to "lines of code" claim, because i dont know about Rubey, but i can write some pritty bloated nested formulas.
Dugg for it meeting that small size. - Yazilliclick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@tyraen
Yes it has real bugs such as not protecting itself from HTML (and likely javascript and such) in postings. - arduenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"in under 500 lines of code"
I wanted to boast that my forum was done in less, so I had a look: 787 lines. (At least they are verbose.) - weiran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I prefer PunBBs much better HTML output.
- WhiskerTheMad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Gosh, I'd better put the kibosh on moving our business' core application to Rails
Oh *****, never mind, it's been serving 200 employees and 7500 customers non-stop for three months now. So shut up, troll. - Grimboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is a bug, unless that was the desired behaviour (which I doubt) then it is a (n admitedly frivellous) bug.
- catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OK I'm sorry but I'm gonna say this.
I do really want to get into Ruby and The Rails framework..but I just can't help but feel there is alot of assumtions made when you're reading blogs, installing the app and watching weblogs. There is alot of Lingo that I don't really understand (and I'm a 'professional' web developer) and I'm expected to.
Maybe because I come from a C, C++ background I'm not really used to all these new fangled terms, but when I picked up PHP i found it really easy..all the terminology was familiar etc.
The Screencast thing of the guy making a blog is so fast, nothing is explained...what software he's using...etc etc.
Maybe I'm just stupid I don't know, but I'm sure I'm not alone. - fyre2012, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Looks great, easy to manage / maintain, kickass 'reply' feature...
Sorry tho, it completely lacks any security checks. Not quite ready for primetime.
In the meantime, there's Vanilla
http://getvanilla.com/ - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Yazilliclick: I wouldn't call that a bug....I would call it an "unimplemented feature".
- judofyr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wrong!
class Forum; echo "Angry Beast Forum"; end - ABloke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1catoutfit: There's plenty of tutorials out there, just google for rails tutorials.
everyone else: Beast isn't competing with anything, it's an experiment and exercise for the developers. It wasn't ready to be dugg, and it doesn't really care about opinions of those from php. It's just a good example of something that everyone wants to do...all those help vampires saying "How do I build a forum" can now have a looksie and find out. - technoweenie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the constructive criticism everyone. And, thanks for the new xss hacks to fix. I'll be updating the rails sanitize helper. As for <plaintext>... crap!
- Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd be impressed if they rewrote Shadow of the Beast in RoR. Parallax scrolling + Open Source = pwnage.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2CaughtThinking? Clearly not....you completely missed the point of the project.
- Mutton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd use it if they actually had installation instructions... or am I not looking hard enough?
- Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Phocion55: Whatever. Being vulnerable to even the most basic XSS threats is not an "unimplemented feature".
- WhiskerTheMad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Code length alone definitely isn't an indicator of code quality but functional, readable, concise code understandable by someone not fluent in the language is..."
Preach on! - rsanheim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is not the first rails forum app. There is also rforum, and opinion, and your google-fu will provide the links. Beast is the smallest and newest of the three. Rforum powers ruby-forum.com, incidentally.
- msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Code length varies greatly on the language it's written in. I could write 500 lines of assembler and maybe get the functionality of a basic calculator with a file size of a few kilobytes, or I could write 500 lines of C and have a packet logger, which could also be done with 250 lines of Python and be just as readable, but have file sizes of several megabytes.
Language level, language syntax, programming style and purpose will affect your code in ways beyond your programming competancy. - ogre2112, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Reminds me of the old PC demo scene where they'd make sweet graphics in a couple KB
- msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I haven't seen the code to know what causes the double 'ago', but typos and bugs are two different things. If it was written as "ago ago" then it's just a typo and isn't related to the code functionality. If for some reason the code is generating "ago" twice, then it's a bug, because it's unintended.
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They shouldn't put the name that close to "Rails"... I misread as "Breast".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2class Forum echo 'Angry Beast Forum' end
one line of code... WOw... - catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1anyway of easily downloading this with out subversion?
- dgrinb01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why less code is better? I know reusable code is better. Better documented code is better. Maybe it's a competition? If so, I can write it in half the lines in java (It'll probably look as cryptic as Rails).
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is