SitePoint Sponsor |
|
User Tag List
Results 76 to 86 of 86
Thread: Benefits of Ruby?
-
Mar 2, 2007, 09:47 #76
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Lancashire
- Posts
- 6
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
I think Ruby is quite a good thing to work with, yet to be sure it's best for you i'd look at other similar things, and go with what you find you are most comfortable with.
Hope that helps.
-
Mar 2, 2007, 11:51 #77
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Posts
- 986
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Yes and cholocate ice cream *is* the best! You claim a fact where there isn't one, and just as you can have a favourite colour you can have a favourite
programming paradigm.
No, I don't agree and I was already explicit about this. Different paradigms fit different situations, no paradigm is universally "more expressive" than another.
Your kiddy examples (you do love these sorts of examples) don't show anything interesting. I personally don't feel either paradigm is better for web development, well actually I do prefer OO or procedural languages for web work. Now, if you are writing algorithms on inductively defined structures than a language like ML is awesome.
Different paradigms fit different situations, no paradigm is universally "more expressive" than another.
-
Mar 2, 2007, 11:57 #78
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Lancashire
- Posts
- 6
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
You have very valid points there.
I'm with you on that one, after reading this conversation.
Ruby is the best for some people, but others it may not be the best for, look around and when you find what you are most comfortable with, use it.
-
Mar 3, 2007, 15:57 #79
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Pittsburgh, Los Angeles
- Posts
- 706
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
I didn't say that it's the best. Read carefully.
Read carefully.
This is why Ruby supports multiple paradigms.
I do love these examples because they show that blocks/closures make the procedure easier to express.
I personally prefer a mix of OO/procedural/functional so you can use the right tool for the job.
I personally think that a functional programming style is very good for web development. Why? A web request is like a function that takes GET/POST data and returns HTML.
Anyhow, this discussion doesn't have utility anymore. But at least some people said a little about the "Benefits of Ruby".
-
Mar 3, 2007, 16:28 #80
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Posts
- 986
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
It was not "logically equivalent in nature". If you substitute "better" for "best" then it is.
To call Ruby a functional language is pretty silly, Ruby only supports OO good and isn't a procedural language in any sense. If you want a language the supports multiple paradigms switch to ocaml.
They don't show anything interesting because they are toy examples, but Ruby/Rails is all about toy examples.
Mixing paradigms in the same code base tends to create a big mess, at least from what I've seen.
You could say the same but replace "functional" with "procedural".
I don't know, but it seems you are confusing functional languages with languages like Ruby that offer a few "functional" like abilities. If a language doesn't treat functions as first-class objects and doesn't allow "inductive definitions" then it can hardly be called functional.
I don't think that Ruby is the best language. I don't even think that Ruby is good compared to the ideal language I can think of now. There are lots of things that can be improved or should be completely changed. Maybe I'm going to create a language that "fixes" these things someday. I do think that Ruby is a better language than PHP (and better than Java & Perl for some things), but most languages are.
-
Mar 4, 2007, 15:59 #81
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Location
- Vancouver BC Canada
- Posts
- 2,037
- Mentioned
- 5 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
You know (and this goes back to the original question about benefits of learning RoR) Sqarissta had some interesting things to say about speed and things to look out for on the RoR horizon:
I'm using mongrel on my laptop and it does indeed take up a big chunk of Ram just idling. It doesn't seem to really consume much more while fetching requests but as this is just a laptop with InstantRails on it and it won't be for production, I haven't load tested it or anything. In no way does this discount RoR as a framework but it's something that we can look forward to seeing improvements in.
I don't think there is any question that Ruby code is slower than other languages but in the big picture of serving pages over the internet, there are larger bottlenecks to consider like databases, slow connections and bloated code on the server or bloated code on the client. At least with the way RoR has evolved and the "DRY" method, there is no need for bloat (by developers) on the server.
Another thing that I appreciated in Squarissta's post was the following:
Ruby/Rails is similar to ASP.NET. Mind you .NET is huge in size & capabilities and is compiled while RoR is quite compact and interpreted but from a web development approach they are similar. I think perhaps some people (myself included) have looked at RoR as something competing with PHPNuke or Drupal, etc... whereas it really is a full stack solution. You can really use it for developing (almost) any type of web application, not just a blogger or CMS site.
An advantage of Rails over other frameworks is that while you are provided with a very neat structure and practices, it doesn't require you to type out the enormous list of dependencies. I was just looking over some C#.NET code which reminded me of that. I think that this might provide a good track for very new developers to follow because they don't have to remember all of the classes required just to display a page yet they do have to get their feet wet with design patterns, unit testing and structured coding.
AndrewAndrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
Principal / Internet Development
-
Mar 4, 2007, 21:05 #82
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Victoria, Australia
- Posts
- 4,122
- Mentioned
- 29 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 2 Thread(s)
I thought I would throw in my 2 cents worth as well..
I've bought the book and am thoroughly enjoying the read.
Rails really is an impressive framework and one that I will learn because as it boasts - it's fun to build a rails application. The tedious tasks that you have to handle in other languages are simply built into the framework.
The hands down best feature of rails though for me personally is that it is written in Ruby.
Having not written in Ruby before it was very interesting typing in the first commands - but I love the intuitiveness of the code. It's the simplest and easiest to learn language that I have come across.
The language has really been though hard about so that there is as small a learning curve as possible and i'm enjoying programming in Ruby.
-
Mar 4, 2007, 23:27 #83
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Posts
- 35
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Holy crap, it's like you read my mind. I just took Ruby for a first test drive - and was way not impressed. I could have typed exactly what you said! Ruby seems to be too simple! I would like full control over what the hell is going on in a programming code. I don't like how Ruby automatically creates a bunch of folders, and automatically creates the ability with buttons to update, delete, and modify some row in MySql! And I hate it when I create a new application it makes a stupid heading automatically, and the heading <h1> even displays cut off in IE7.
You see, I want to enjoy programming. I don't want to type just a few lines of code or something and it automatically generates a blog system or whatever. I want to make my own from scratch. By this way, I can really enjoy the elegant art form of programming, and understand everything of what's going on.
So basically, for me, Ruby is just too simple. It'll probably be suitable for people who really want to get to building their own websites in the shortest amount of time.
EDIT: Whoever said that Microsoft is trying to increase their software so that they can have more money is a complete moron. You know Bill Gates? You know what his goal is? His goal is to give away all his money to those who needs it the most. So think aobut it. For those who are diehard microsoft haters who think Microsoft is dominating too much, think about it: Who entered the sucessful computer market first?
-
Mar 5, 2007, 07:19 #84
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Posts
- 986
- Mentioned
- 0 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
AirForceOne, I think you mean Rails and not Ruby. Ruby is a programming language where you have as much control as in any programming language. Rails is for people who want to get things done, not for people who insist on doing everything on their own (but why aren't you using assembly or building your own computer in that case?).
-
Mar 5, 2007, 08:04 #85
-
Mar 5, 2007, 09:59 #86
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Location
- Vancouver BC Canada
- Posts
- 2,037
- Mentioned
- 5 Post(s)
- Tagged
- 0 Thread(s)
Off Topic:
I must have missed the dig against MS. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not RoR is worth looking at but it always seems to become part of the debate anyway. Oh well...
I think you and the Stormrider miss the point of the ability to automatically create your folder structure and the editing buttons. They are for very different puposes. The folder structure is to give you a consistent development approach. If you can't appreciate this, you must be relatively new to programming and/or development. The directory structure provides you with development, testing and production environments. It also provides you or any rails developer a common ground for collaborating. It's the same for any development framework you might work with.
In your second point, I think when you speak of the auto-created buttons for editing, deleting, etc... you might be referring to scaffolding which is temporary code to get your application up to speed during development. Generally this is one line of code that gives you a full featured if not generic CMS.
Again, this is not for production... It's to get you by until you develop the admin tools yourself. Personally, I think it's genius. It's generated with one line in the controller "scaffold :name_of_object". Whenever I build a data driven app, I need some data to help in development so I either whip together an interface (form of some type) or I write a SQL file and load it in the database. Using a scaffold during development will save several hours of temporary data generation and that just makes sense.
The statement about people looking at RoR because they are lazy is well.... (searching for the right adjective.... Don't want to be rude... Got it... The word is...) Uninformed. To take the time to learn a new technology and learn it well enough to apply it to your professional development takes motivation, drive and commitment. Those of us advocating RoR are not producing toy scafolded apps. We are looking at Rails to provide custom web apps tailored to the requirements of specific projects. We're looking at Rails because perhaps it will provide the flexibility and/or scaleability that we don't find with .NET, Struts or procedural one off development.
I think you owe it to yourself to save the embarrasment and have a look at some real Rails sites in production before making such blanket statements. Perhaps the best designed site you'll find is ALA. More can be found here:
http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pa...orldUsagePage1
PHP. ASP, .NET, xml/xslt, etc... They're tools and I'll continue to use them when they fit. RoR is another tool that might be helpfull. I can code all day and night with the languages I know. I'd be lazy if I didn't make the effort to learn new technologies.Last edited by awasson; Mar 7, 2007 at 11:19.
Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
Principal / Internet Development
Bookmarks