What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
58 Comments
- writr, on 05/17/2009, -4/+23Ruby on rails rocks! If you are a PHP developer who's tired of the sucky syntax of PHP check out Rails for PHP developers it will get you converted in no time http://railsforphp.com/
- fas2, on 05/17/2009, -0/+14Try out Python with, say, Django. Not saying it is better than Cake, but PHP is just a pain with its semantics, bad OOP support and function hell.
- InorganicMatter, on 05/17/2009, -4/+15What exactly is your reasoning here? You must be in the same circle-jerk of people who mock .NET or Java developers and insist that anything less than C, or maybe even Assembly, isn't REAL programming!
Newsflash: you may like it because it shows how cool you are, but not everyone wants to screw around with SQL commands, or jack with the grunt-work crap that PHP makes you do. I like being able to just say "Hey, store this data somewhere!" and the system handles everything else. - socivitus, on 05/17/2009, -2/+12If you fail to install Rails on your local machine, you can develop apps in the cloud using Heroku (here's a link to the free version: http://herokugarden.com). Great place to dip your feet into Rails.
- jaygeeze, on 05/17/2009, -8/+17The buzz on ror is dying down, I think it's because of equally good (if not better) PHP frameworks like CakePHP. zend, and codeigniter. Great guide nonetheless but I think I'm going to stick with Cake.
- InorganicMatter, on 05/17/2009, -1/+9That must have been a while ago. Passenger, aka mod_rails, makes RoR a breeze to set up in Apache.
- MtheoryX, on 05/18/2009, -1/+8To be fair, PHP itself doesn't "make" you use SQL any more or less than Ruby or Python, themselves.
Frameworks != Languages
" system handles everything else."
The "system" you're referring to is a framework, and there are frameworks available for PHP that make things just as easy as Rails does for Ruby. - Wuss, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6Can't you just install InstantRails?
As a noob wannabe programmer coming from the front end design world, I've actually done extensive research on both php (w/ cake), and Ruby on Rails. Literally, after months of reading pretty much every Google accessible thread on PHP (sometimes on a framwork) vs RoR, I've concluded that it really is up to preference. I've been through both Cakephp and RoR blog tutorials, and from that experience, RoR is laughably intuitive in comparison with even CakePHP.
However, ultimately I think that PHP will be my initial language of choice just because of it's mass proliferation, regardless of it's shortcomings. People's main complaint of PHP seems to be that it's not a "real" language and it wasn't created as a true OOP. Despite this shortcoming, it's still used by a good portion of the highest traffic sites on the www, including Digg (at least initially).
And while I yet to experience it mysef, there does seem to be an uncomfortable amount of RoR developers that jump ship when experiencing performance and scaling issues. Between "ugly language" and "performance and scaling" issues, I'd rather deal with an ugly language, cuz quitte frankly, if it's my first, I won't know any better.
I still intend to learn RoR based on my blog tutorial experience. I love it's simplicity and common sense syntax. Of all the languages I scoped, RoR singularly got me the most excited about programming. I'm sure it'll come in handy for smaller scale projects, and rapid prototyping. - tibbon, on 05/18/2009, -1/+7How about this?
'sudo gem install rails'
boom. you've installed rails. Wasn't that easy?
(I realize this doesn't work on Windows. Windows is a fine desktop setup, but I don't consider it to be as useful as a server. Just use a *nix server like the rest of the world and develop on there). - InorganicMatter, on 05/18/2009, -4/+9I'm not posting anything, CakePHP's terrible performance is well documented.
- iWaffles, on 05/18/2009, -0/+5Yes there have been plenty: http://rails100.pbworks.com/Compete+Rankings
- InorganicMatter, on 05/17/2009, -4/+8PHP frameworks will have to speed up first. As slow as RoR is, it's still the fastest web application framework out there right now.
- brianpipa, on 05/18/2009, -0/+4http://rails100.pbworks.com/ has some lists of the biggest sites on the net that use rails. My t-shirt search engine ( http://teenormous.com) ranks in the top 100 (which blows my mind)
- undershirt, on 05/18/2009, -0/+4I hope you're being sarcastic. One of the most appealing features of Ruby is the fact that it's a pure OO language. So I don't know where you're getting that it's procedural and meant for shell programming. It's my favorite OO language. I prefer it over Python because its structure is more intuitive and consistent (though often wordier). It's a little a slow to execute, but I think it'll get faster once they start compiling scripts in Ruby 2.0.
- seanmc303, on 05/18/2009, -0/+4Rails did have problems scaling some time ago, but Rails and associated deployment techniques have made the scalability argument a moot point. People still making an argument against the scalability of Rails have not been keeping up with the Rails world for the last 1 - 1.5 years. The people who are concerned about scalability should ask themselves if they are likely to have Twitter's traffic any time soon if ever? 99%+ of web applications will not have traffic any where remotely close to Twitter's traffic. Does rapid development and highly maintainable code outweigh a slight loss of performance?
- sickthoughts, on 05/18/2009, -3/+7A programming article on the frontpage of Digg? I didn't realise hell had frozen over... Must have been submitted by a power user.
On a related note - I'm finding Python on Django/Pylons to be superior to Ruby "here today gone tomorrow" on Rails. - phillc, on 05/18/2009, -1/+4PHP isn't a framework?
- jggube, on 05/17/2009, -3/+6Source? Benchmark links?
- N01SE, on 05/18/2009, -0/+3The idea of frameworks is to make development easier/faster, but the encapsulation can be dangerous. I'm afraid of software people who use them not understanding the underlying foundations of dynamic web apps: dbms, network protocols, cgi, etc. (even basic scripting and markup). I've worked with many such developers, and their code is usually incredibly memory inefficient and costing loads of unnecessary bandwidth, they think in a very adhoc and chaotic manner, code first, ask questions later kind of deal. I think the comment was directed towards the issue that frameworks allow developers who actually do not understand the foundations of web apps to create very low quality software.
- Wuss, on 05/18/2009, -0/+3@ Magzine, could you be more specific about why PHP needs to be supplemented for "efficiency? Are there things PHP just can't do that other web languages can? Thanks in advance.
- MAGZine, on 05/18/2009, -1/+4I took a look at rails when it was new, but in the end, decided not to move with it and maybe I'm a fool for doing so.
It still makes me curious, though, if Rails was part of the initial scaling problem that Twitter had. Has Rails had any other major projects behind it's back? - domfosnz, on 05/17/2009, -4/+7I'd have to agree. I tried RoR. It was a mission to get it set up and working properly on a server. I'm now using codeigniter for the site and it works like a dream.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a RoR hater. It was just a pain in the ass for me. - mrBitch, on 05/18/2009, -0/+3RE: " ... develop apps in the cloud using Heroku (here's a link to the free version: http://herokugarden.com
Great place to dip your feet into Rails. "
That is a fantastic way of starting out Rails development... - jodokast, on 05/18/2009, -0/+2@goteki
It's now slow because of ruby's VM, is slow because the framework itself is a bit bloated. The next version of rails (Rails 3) will fix that, making everything more modular so you can only load the compenents you need.
Also, ruby's VM got a huge performance boost with 1.9 (about 2x) which was released a couple months ago, and most of the bottlenecks have been resolved so that isn't a problem anymore.
According to http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.p ... : Ruby 1.9 performs better than python. - MAGZine, on 05/18/2009, -0/+2Well done. It's nice to see someone who researches and makes an informed decision instead of being herded into one decision or another.
Many large sites use PHP, and while PHP is fine and dandy, your site eventually will need to be supplemented by perl or python to increase efficiency. The other language of popularity is 'that evil Microsoft one', which should be avoided at all costs. (Not really, because a lot of employers require it, but generally because it's a closed platform/language... boo!) - domfosnz, on 05/18/2009, -0/+2It was a while ago. I'm not going to rewrite the sites in Rails tho.
- tibbon, on 05/19/2009, -0/+2As in, plug in a thumb drive with Ubuntu on it, wait 2 minutes for the machine to start, and then hit 'install to hard drive'?
Yea, that's pretty hard.
Also, you can just load up VMWare and launch tons of pre-installed Linux images, with Rails already installed and ready to go. Takes no time at all to have a full functioning server image.
The only semi-tricky one is on Windows, but then you just double click on an Instant Rails package, and then you're done. - wilhoitm, on 05/18/2009, -0/+2Now if I can just forget all the bad habits I learned from Java, it would make it a much easier to learn Ruby. I have to learn Ruby now since ORACLE bought Sun's Java.
- ReptileKing234, on 05/18/2009, -2/+4I've been a PHP developer for a while now and I have just started learning RoR in the last two weeks. I'm honestly starting to LOVE ruby on rails - because it is intuitive and lightening fast. I've heard people complain that rails is slow but I have yet to see benchmarks that would convince me not to convert.
Some big websites out there use rails - some a lot bigger than any website I'll ever make. Case closed. - mrBitch, on 05/18/2009, -0/+2@ AtomicDog1471, RE: "... You missed out the ordeal of installing linux"
Under OSX, ruby and rails (and gem) are already installed as part of OSX.
I just tried this using the OSX terminal :
$ rails -v
Rails 1.2.6
Wow, that's pretty ancient. Let's see how hard it is to update my version of rails :
$ sudo gem install rails
... Bulk updating Gem source index...
$ rails -v
Rails 2.3.2
See? If you're scared of installing Linux, just use OSX on a Mac (or OSX-86 on a PC).
PS : if you want to get dirty, you can manually update Mongrel, etc. on OSX via this tutorial :
http://hivelogic.com/articles/view/ruby-rails-leop ... - HonoredMule, on 05/18/2009, -0/+2From what isolated rock did you just crawl out? I can remember a time (mid-90's) when installing Linux was just a little more difficult/tedious/painful than installing Windows. Now there's just no comparison, and Linux is more pleasant to install than the average properly packaged Windows application.
- domfosnz, on 05/18/2009, -1/+3Performance issues?
Just kidding :) - Stegg, on 05/19/2009, -0/+1@N01SE These frameworks make the barrier of entry lower for people, though, and the more developers we have out there the better. There's nothing wrong with entering the world of web programming through a framework and then learning about optimization as you go along. The dirty little secret about developing websites is that the VAST majority of them don't need to be that fast as they will never have the traffic to justify the need. I hate to say it, but DHH's insistence that you can just throw more hardware at a problem for the most part is true. Deal with scaling when it actually becomes a problem.
I can personally attest to the fact that had Rails not been as intuitive and easy to use I would've never dove into web application development. In fact, I made the attempt with PHP a few years before trying Rails and the garbled mess of code I attempted to contribute to scared me off. Now that I've been working with Rails for the last 2 years I've learned what all the underlying technology does (and continue to learn) and I've been extremely productive - in fact I make my living as a Rails developer.
Long story short, if you're thinking of dipping your toes into the world of web development, Rails is an excellent entry point, as is Django or Cake PHP or any opinionated framework. Don't listen to elitist morons like @InorganicMatter, they are the type of programmer that would rather their field be as unpopulated as possible rather than welcoming new blood with open arms. They usually slink away into obscurity as these hot new frameworks become popular. - Icetype, on 05/18/2009, -0/+1http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.ph ...
Ruby is slower than PHP, not enough to matter tho. - FDDIcent, on 05/18/2009, -1/+2Twitter and Hulu are built on RoR, they defiantly seem fast enough for me.
And if you have a mac is so easy to install rails, and Textmate is an awesome coding tool. - overture8, on 05/18/2009, -0/+1People use Rails because it is a useful tool for web development not because it's the new thing on the block. It is over five years old now.
- counterplex, on 05/18/2009, -0/+1I'm not sure what MAGZine is talking about but I'd imagine if you needed additional work done outside of the web application framework to e.g. load data in the database or massage said data or otherwise manipulate aspects of the application that need to happen in the background and not necessarily as a result of user input, you would probably have to augment it with perl and/or python scripts. I realize you can compile a php interpreter as a standalone executable which (I assume) can be used to run standard php code instead of resorting to perl/python.
Having said that, I've always figured the language is immaterial. If it's better suited to the task then use it. If you can work more efficiently in it as compared to another then use the one you prefer. At the end of the day the product is what matters, not the process or choice of platform. - dragossh, on 05/18/2009, -0/+1'sudo gem install rails' - It sure doesn't seem like he talks about Ruby :)
- mrBitch, on 05/18/2009, -0/+1RE: " ... Rails for PHP developers it will get you converted in no time : http://railsforphp.com/
Great resource for those new to Rails. - Stegg, on 05/19/2009, -0/+1The Rails scaling issue is FUD, plain and simple. I really encourage you to give it another look, you will be amazed at the productivity gains. The basic philosophy of Rails is that if you trust an opinionated framework to make most of the decisions about the technology foundation your app will be running on, you're free to spend more time actually developing it. Keep in mind that Twitter continues to use Rails and have reiterated that Rails had nothing to do with their scaling issues many times publicly. If hulu.com and yelllowpages.com scaled well with Rails, chances are your sites will too.
- Wuss, on 05/18/2009, -2/+2hah... one self-plug i'm happy to bookmark. =). Nice work.
- phillc, on 05/18/2009, -4/+4First to say Django!
Seriously, I use Django, Rails, and several other frameworks on a day to day basis... They all have their advantages. - jellygraph, on 05/18/2009, -1/+1on windows?
- dragossh, on 05/18/2009, -3/+3Do yourself a favor and don't cite Wikipedia. How about going to RoR's site and check it out for yourself?
- wagefreedom, on 05/27/2009, -0/+0here's a good list of tutorials/guides on installing Ruby on Rails on Windows:
http://www.digitalmediaminute.com/article/2904/rub ... - roazena, on 05/18/2009, -0/+0Because Java is RUINED FOREVER
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -2/+1You missed out the ordeal of installing linux; not easy at all.
- goteki, on 05/18/2009, -3/+2Ruby isn't the framework, it's the language.
RoR is the framework. - kolobcreek, on 05/18/2009, -4/+3WTF Ruby on Rails is a nice frame work if you like scripting languages that were intended for shell programming.
haha you should try Bash on stilts
yuck even worse "It is based on Perl, Smalltalk, Eiffel, Ada, and Lisp." (wikipedia). I'm sorry but its about the worst thing to come out of japan since japanimation. Its only redeemable quality is the tools that automatically setup the project for you. Which I'm sure the idea was borrowed from apache's maven.
" There is currently no specification of the Ruby language" (wikipedia) What they're really trying to say is its a cluster ***** of unorganized libraries and dependencies.
I really shouldn't be so hard its a really great language if you want to write bad procedural code for the rest of your life.
Do yourself a favor learn a real object oriented language. I'm sure you'll see the value reflected in your salary and respect from your peers. -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is