Re: Ruby on Rails?

     From:       [email protected]
     Subject:     Re: Ruby on Rails?
     Date:     October 27, 2005 6:06:50 PM CDT
     To:       [email protected], webobjects- 
[email protected], [email protected]

On Oct 27, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Mont Rothstein wrote:


> I asked this same question not long ago on a different list. Below  
> is the
> reply I received.
>
> <snip>
>
> On 28. Mai 2005, at 05:34 Uhr, Mont Rothstein wrote:
>
>>
>>

Well, I've been lurking here for quite some time. I'm definitely  
still a newbie. In fact, that's the problem. I make some progress  
with WO, then get bogged down in the complexity of this beast. I just  
don't have the time to learn WebObjects. Because it's not JUST  
WebObjects you have to learn. It's XCode/Eclipse, Java, the Java that  
WebObjects adds to it, the relational dbms back end, the proper  
adapter for it and how to install it, etc, etc. Sure WO has a lot to  
offer, but for my needs, it's too inaccessible. Granted I've come to  
WO at a disadvantage. I didn't know Java very well. Java is really  
great, but it's complex enough by all by itself. I know I don't have  
to use all of what I've learned, but I also noticed when I didn't GET  
to use some what I learned because "that's not how it's done in  
WebObjects". RoR is not like that. It complements and takes full  
advantage of Ruby. I understand WO 5.2.4 is a bit more flexible with  
standard collections classes, now, but that's one of the things I was  
referring to.

With RoR, there's a focus, if you will, on GETTING SOMETHING  
ACCOMPLISHED! The steps involved are manageable and understandable.  
Whenever possible, it uses consistent naming schemes rather than  
configuration files. The "tools" are focused and flexible - usually  
scripts. There's an interactive terminal-based version of Ruby (irb)  
that lets me play with Ruby as I'm learning it. I can literally build  
an object and run tests on it right there. That's just not possible  
in Java. Ruby itself is more elegant, more concise and just as  
powerful as Java if not more so, IMO. It doesn't have all the cool  
open source libraries and frameworks, but they're being created at a  
rapid rate. Plus, at least according to Bruce Tate, RoR is as fast if  
not faster than many widely used Java web frameworks out there. I  
doubt WebObjects is one of them, though. I think he was comparing it  
to Spring/Hibernate.

I really believe the main "hype" behind RoR is its accessibility and  
productivity. No, it may not have all the cool components that WO  
has, but it's got plenty. Can you flip a switch and turn your WO page  
into one that's enhanced by AJAX? Ummm, no, I don't think you can.


> I know that Sebastian loves RoR and has written some application with
> it, we already discussed that to death ;-) Unfortunately its hard to
> discuss with RoR (or Zope) fanatics since most of them never used a
> *real* application server before ;->
>

Bruce Tate has published several best-selling Java books on the  
market ("Bitter Java", "Better, Faster, Lighter, Java", and now  
"Beyond Java"). He thought Ruby was a nice toy too, until he actually  
implemented a non-trivial project with it. He now hopes to be a 100%  
Ruby and RoR consultant. I think that's a fairly significant move for  
such a widely respected Java/Spring/Hibernate consultant.

<http://weblogs.java.net/blog/batate/archive/2005/02/the_toy_1.html>

Here are some interesting "hype" comments: <http:// 
weblog.rubyonrails.com/archives/category/Praise?page=3>

Doug