SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 70
  1. #26
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Los Angeles
    Posts
    706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Could you please elaborate on the difference between a "pet application" and a "real application"? Also, what are some of the inflexibilities that you came across. Are they mostly from legacy systems?
    By pet application I mean the sort of thing you mess with for say personal enrichment...this is what most people are doing with RoR at the moment.

    Regardling the inflexibilities...RoR is a particular interpretation of the MVC pattern as a result it places certain restrictions on what you can do (I mean the people working on RoR say this too). So things like how you would use xslt to build "views" etc was not obvious to me...yet this is something you often want to do. Where j2ee is pretty flexible and does not put too many restrictions on what you can do.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Guru Majglow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    B-Town
    Posts
    645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Also, I know that Nike has been using ruby on rails to implement various parts of their website.

    That's a pretty big customer.
    Ohai!

  3. #28
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Um, .NET is not a language.

  4. #29
    Put your best practices away. The New Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,087
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
    Um, .NET is not a language.
    Niether is rails. But people seem to compare Rails, j2ee and .net.
    "A nerd who gets contacts
    and a trendy hair cut is still a nerd"

    - Stephen Colbert on Apple Users

  5. #30
    SitePoint Zealot _theworks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    165
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The New Guy
    Niether is rails. But people seem to compare Rails, j2ee and .net.

    Ageed, people should be comparing frameworks not language's

    RoR vs Zend vs .NET

  6. #31
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    986
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Regardling the inflexibilities...RoR is a particular interpretation of the MVC pattern as a result it places certain restrictions on what you can do (I mean the people working on RoR say this too). So things like how you would use xslt to build "views" etc was not obvious to me...yet this is something you often want to do. Where j2ee is pretty flexible and does not put too many restrictions on what you can do.
    Ehh, you can use XSLT as your template language. You can use your own template language, the liquid-template authors have done this, for example, and there is Builder, ERb (standard), RJS and Markaby. But there is no *built in* XSLT template engine yet. I think that is because XSLT is far more verbose than ERb.

    The existing template languages can be installed with a plugin (plugins make Rails very flexible):

    http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/markabyForRails.html
    http://home.leetsoft.com/liquid

    And these are built in:

    RJS, ERb and Builder.

    If you are going to create XSLT templates, please create a plugin for them so others can use it.

    Ageed, people should be comparing frameworks not language's
    People should be comparing things that are used to build web applications. So RoR vs PHP is fine.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrir2
    (With RoR,) there is no *built in* XSLT template engine yet. I think that is because XSLT is far more verbose than ERb.
    Seems like someone just needs to get interested enough to build a RoR XSLT plugin. Is there a central repository for non-built-in RoR plugins (e.g. RubyGems)? For Catalyst, anyone can provide add-ons via CPAN and there's a Catalyst::View::XSLT available there that's not provided by the core Catalyst team.

  8. #33
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaily
    By pet application I mean the sort of thing you mess with for say personal enrichment...this is what most people are doing with RoR at the moment.
    So I guess sites like Basecamp, AListApart, and Penny Arcade are toys then. Coulda fooled me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaily
    Regardling the inflexibilities...RoR is a particular interpretation of the MVC pattern as a result it places certain restrictions on what you can do (I mean the people working on RoR say this too). So things like how you would use xslt to build "views" etc was not obvious to me...yet this is something you often want to do. Where j2ee is pretty flexible and does not put too many restrictions on what you can do.
    Using XSLT to generate views implies one of 3 things:
    1. You're generating XML out of your database and passing that into the view. Why not just pass data from the database?
    2. XML is your only input format. Maybe the Rails framework is too heavy for a case like this.
    3. You're generating multiple output formats from the same data. Rails can do that without the overhead of XSLT:
    Code:
    class PagesController < ApplicationController
      def show
        #grab all pages
        @pages = Page.find_all
        #vary output based on http accept header
        respond_to do |wants|
          wants.js #renders show.rjs
          wants.html #renders show.rhtml
          wants.xml #renders show.rxml
        end
      end
    end
    If I'm incorrect please let me know, but I bet there's plenty of other ways around your problem without XSLT.

  9. #34
    Put your best practices away. The New Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,087
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    So I guess sites like Basecamp, AListApart, and Penny Arcade are toys then. Coulda fooled me.
    He is sorta right though. It would take less then both your hands count all the high load / "enterprise" RoR websites. Infact there are probably more high load websites written in strange languages like Amazon (C?).

    Anyhoo. As for XML and everything like it. I hate it. It is ONLY useful if your sharing data between two different applications. There is no point in coverting x to y to z, when z is the native language. Just us z. RoR doesn't even really need to use YAML either, but it does for appeal mostly.
    "A nerd who gets contacts
    and a trendy hair cut is still a nerd"

    - Stephen Colbert on Apple Users

  10. #35
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The New Guy
    He is sorta right though. It would take less then both your hands count all the high load / "enterprise" RoR websites.
    There's a list of Languages and Large Sites that can use some expanding. Basecamp, AListApart and Penny Arcade have respectable Alexa rankings (9612, 5492, 2269 respectively) but are far lower than say eBay (7, Java), Amazon (12, Perl), Wikipedia (17, PHP), LiveJournal (65, Perl). It can be hard to figure out sites like Google and Yahoo! which use different languages for various services, e.g. the Alexa rank for groups.google.com (Python) just gives you the main google.com site. What's the highest Alexa ranking Ruby-based site?
    Quote Originally Posted by The New Guy
    there are probably more high load websites written in strange languages like Amazon (C?).
    IIRC, Amazon uses the Perl-based Mason templating system. Mason is also used by del.icio.us (470 Alexa).
    Last edited by Mazr; Apr 9, 2006 at 10:53.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    986
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rails is very young, so it's no surprise that there are no/not many (depends on what your definition of big is) big applications yet.

  12. #37
    SitePoint Guru Majglow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    B-Town
    Posts
    645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by _theworks
    Ageed, people should be comparing frameworks not language's

    RoR vs Zend vs .NET
    PHP on it's own is a language + a framework. All those built in functions consist of a framework.

    Also, I think that it's assumed that when we say "java" in this thread, we're referring to java and whatever related frameworks that are available in order to get to an internet solution as well as anything related to it. The same going for ruby, php, .NET (pick a .NET language), etc...
    Ohai!

  13. #38
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Los Angeles
    Posts
    706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ehh, you can use XSLT as your template language.
    Note: I never said you couldn't do it...certainly haven't used RoR to make such claims! Rather when I was playing with it..it wasn't obvious to me how to use it. This is one out of many things though.
    So I guess sites like Basecamp, AListApart, and Penny Arcade are toys then. Coulda fooled me.
    I seriously dont' know the point of this comment..I did not once say that there are "no big applications writen in RoR". I was merely defining what I meant by "pet application".
    1. You're generating XML out of your database and passing that into the view. Why not just pass data from the database?
    Because not all data fits into a relational database in a nice way. It shouldn't be surpsing that XML is a better format to store some sorts of data (same can be said of relation databases of course)
    2. XML is your only input format. Maybe the Rails framework is too heavy for a case like this.
    XML need not be your "only input format"...in every case I've used xslt its been mixed with data from a relation database (in the sense that the views were composite views, the main content was from xml...the other stuff from a database). Also in these cases RoR would have been too light weight!
    3. You're generating multiple output formats from the same data. Rails can do that without the overhead of XSLT:
    If the input format is XML (which it must be if using XSLT) then why would you do things directly in rails? Also how does rails avoid any overhead...you still have to parse though the xml data etc ( the xslt can be cached). Doing this directly in rails (or any language) would be totally ugly...and at least one reason why XSLT was created. Writing a transformation in XSLT is soooooooooo much easier and faster than doing so directly in code (if this is even what you are suggest?)

    Anyhow how my comment turned into an anti-xslt diatribe is beyond me...also this doesn't seem like a good way to respond to a weakness in a framework "oh you don't need that anyways, only sucker use it!"
    There is no point in coverting x to y to z, when z is the native language. Just us z
    If z is say an entire book online...then what do you do when you want to change the way tabular data is displayed? It becomes an utter pain. If instead you used well crafted mark-up language for your content you'd just have to change a few lines in your xslt and you're done. But I would agree that xml and its related technologies are overused.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Majglow
    PHP on it's own is a language + a framework. All those built in functions consist of a framework.
    I consider PHP, on its own, more of a language + templating system. All those built-in functions are not a framework, it's just loading a lot of libraries into the global namespace which some, including myself, consider very ugly. Hopefully more people will move to OO PHP.
    Last edited by Mazr; Apr 9, 2006 at 13:44.

  15. #40
    SitePoint Guru Majglow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    B-Town
    Posts
    645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Also, obviously my knowledge of ruby on rails is still limited as of now, but isn't it quite easy to pull various parts out and replace them? For example, I want to use everything except ActiveRecord... but want to use oG instead. That's fine? (although, i never looked at oG, I'm assuming that it's easy to use stand alone). If there are legacy databases to use, then I can write my own adapters.

    Also, there are a lot of complaints about "embedded javascript" but I never saw any JS outputted unless I explicitly asked for it.
    Ohai!

  16. #41
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaily
    how my comment turned into an anti-xslt diatribe is beyond me...
    Perhaps because XSLT is not "The Ruby Way." RoR is often called "opinionated software."
    Quote Originally Posted by Snaily
    this doesn't seem like a good way to respond to a weakness in a framework "oh you don't need that anyways, only sucker use it!"
    That exact strategy worked quite well for MySQL

  17. #42
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Williamsport, PA
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    With Java 1.4 you could plop any object you wanted into an ArrayList--just make sure you use the appropriate cast when you pull it out. Now you have to define the type of objects the ArrayList is going to hold before you use it.
    Ahem...

    Code:
    ArrayList<Object> list = new ArrayList<Object>();
    
    // Two totally different types...
    String o1 = "This is one type of object.";
    Date o2 = new Date();
    
    // Go into the same collection.
    list.add(o1);
    list.add(o2);
    So you've got to specify a type for Java 5 Colletions based on generics. So what? I'm pretty sure you're old code still compiles; and if not, just declare them with type object and treat them the same way you used to. Easy as pie.

  18. #43
    SitePoint Guru Majglow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    B-Town
    Posts
    645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think one of the main selling points of Rails is that it isn't overly flexible. If that in of itself makes it "not enterprise worthy" then what does "enterprise" mean?
    Ohai!

  19. #44
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's a quote from Guido van Rossum of Python fame in his article Web Framework Redux that discusses the flexibility issue with Python frameworks and RoR:
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido van Rossum
    Some frameworks emphasize that the effort of getting started is low. But this is really only so to the extent that you're trying to do something very similar to something that's been done a 1000 times before, so that all the defaults in the framework and the setup utilities are all doing exactly what's needed. This (and very fast typing) is what makes the first Rails movie possible.
    [...]
    What if you want to write an AJAX application like Google Maps or Gmail? Etc.
    There's nothing wrong with not being enterprise-ready if you have a different focus. It just means that RoR isn't the solution for every web application. I think RoR is great from some apps, others not so much. As per the MySQL example, MySQL didn't start to be considered enterprise ready until version 5, after it was already super popular and used in large-scale deployments.

  20. #45
    SitePoint Guru Majglow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    B-Town
    Posts
    645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mazr
    There's nothing wrong with not being enterprise-ready if you have a different focus.
    What does "enterprise-ready" mean?
    Ohai!

  21. #46
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Majglow
    What does "enterprise-ready" mean?
    The term "enterprise-ready" doesn't have an Oxford English Dictionary definition if that's what you're looking for. It's more a marketing term (J2EE, Oracle 10g EE) and an idea than anything else. For MySQL, being enterprise-ready meant ACID-compliance, stored procedures, triggers, views, etc. More generally, IMO, EE products should be able to be used by enterprises to develop and deploy just about any type of large scale application. My current view is that RoR's lack of flexibility limits its usefulness in the development area and it's lack of proven scalability limits it in the deployment area. This isn't to say that you can't do what you want in RoR, just that it may be difficult (it may not supported or may even be frowned upon by the opinionated community). This also isn't to say that it can't scale, just that it's not proven. Enterprises generally don't like technology risk for their mission critical apps. Read Guido's article for examples of the kind of flexibility he wants.

    I purposely avoided RoR for my current project because I have a somewhat unusual user model (that wouldn't fit easily into "The Ruby Way") and I'm unsure of RoR's scalability. I've also heard of a number of issues involving ActiveRecord from a DB expert but since I'm not one, I won't comment. I don't expect to have those issues with an "EE" system. For me, "enterprise-ready" means "no technology risk" so efforts can be focused on managing the business risk. Just my 2 cents.
    Last edited by Mazr; Apr 9, 2006 at 20:21.

  22. #47
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Majglow
    What does "enterprise-ready" mean?
    When pointy-haired consulting outfits like Gartner start hyping your product/service/language, you're "enterprise-ready".

  23. #48
    SitePoint Enthusiast Stevenwulf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Berkeley
    Posts
    76
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @coffee_ninja

    I never said it wouldn't compile. You'll will get a warning message though, and I wouldn't be surprised if in furture versions of java it doesn't compile.

    The point, was that generics have made java less dynamic in the sense that there is now more type checking.

  24. #49
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    986
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If the input format is XML (which it must be if using XSLT) then why would you do things directly in rails? Also how does rails avoid any overhead...you still have to parse though the xml data etc ( the xslt can be cached). Doing this directly in rails (or any language) would be totally ugly...and at least one reason why XSLT was created. Writing a transformation in XSLT is soooooooooo much easier and faster than doing so directly in code (if this is even what you are suggest?)
    I don't think so. Doing it in Java WILL probably be worse than XSLT, but ReXML/Mapping + Builder will be as easy or easier than XSLT.

    But anyway, if you don't know how to create an XSLT template engine, is that Rails' fault? It is certainly possible.

  25. #50
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Los Angeles
    Posts
    706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't think so. Doing it in Java WILL probably be worse than XSLT, but ReXML/Mapping + Builder will be as easy or easier than XSLT.
    This comment leads me to believe you haven't worked much with XSLT + java/xml. From looking at ReXML I see nothing about it that makes it "easier" than tools that exist for Java, in fact it looks much like xom. Additionally what you said about XSLT...is only true for very trivial transformations...there are many more "advance" features of xslt that cannot easily be mimic by a standard xml parser, you would be in essense re-implementing the xslt engine.
    Also doing the transformation in a programming language destroys many benefits of MVC, that is you have to have a programmer work on "view code", where as must html/css guys can figure out xslt. But....again more anti-xslt junk.
    But anyway, if you don't know how to create an XSLT template engine, is that Rails' fault?
    Again....I was not trying to claim that its not possible, only that it was not obvious how to use it to me. In particular how to it with some sort of composite view pattern.
    The point, was that generics have made java less dynamic
    And the point is wrong, even if you are forced to use generics, you
    simply need to do what someone else pointed out:
    Code:
    ArrayList<Object> list = new ArrayList<Object>();
    This will make the collections behave just as they use to.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •