Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming

Restructured Ruby on Rails 3.0 Hits Beta 197

Posted by kdawson
from the insert-gems-and-trains-reference dept.
Curlsman informs us that the first beta of Ruby on Rails 3.0 has been released (release notes here). Rails founder David Heinemeier Hansson blogged that RoR 3.0 "feels lighter, more agile, and easier to understand." This release is the first the Merb team has participated in. Merb is a model-view-controller framework written in Ruby, and they joined the RoR development effort over a year ago. Reader Curlsman asks, "So, is version 3 of RoR going to be a big deal, more of the same (good or bad), or just churning technology?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Restructured Ruby on Rails 3.0 Hits Beta

Comments Filter:
  • by k33l0r (808028) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @06:23PM (#31056014) Homepage Journal

    I've never heard that Rails would make "programmers obsolete", in fact it seems to be the opposite; if you look at the official Rails site [rubyonrails.org] you'll notice that the biggest tag-line is "optimized for developer happiness".

    Rails makes developers happier, not unemployed. What's more, anyone can write bad code in any language, so pointing to Twitter is hardly a conclusive argument. There are lots of big Rails sites out there, including Basecamp [basecamphq.com], the original Rails application.

    For a better (and longer) write up on scaling Rails, I refer you to this article [zdnet.com].

  • by Peter Cooper (660482) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @06:29PM (#31056056) Homepage Journal

    Over at Ruby Inside we did (and are maintaining) a roundup of ~36 Rails 3.0 beta links/articles [rubyinside.com] (it's up to about 40 now, I think). If you've got Rails 3.0 installed and want to know how to use X or Y or want to learn some of the back story/motivation, the links should come in useful. They're only things that are actually worth reading. Well, mostly.. :-)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07, 2010 @06:30PM (#31056066)

    I just love the rails development community...they've really shown that they welcome any new ideas, frameworks etc and incorporate the best of everything into a fully fledged release.

    Well done and Thank you.

  • by PCM2 (4486) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @09:29PM (#31057124) Homepage

    Hostgator offers Rails on all their plans, too, which start at $4.95/month. I think someone's not looking hard enough.

  • Re:HTTP methods (Score:3, Informative)

    by mini me (132455) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @10:31PM (#31057514)

    Not true. From the CouchDB docs:

    To create new document you can either use a POST operation or a PUT operation. To create/update a named document using the PUT operation, the URL must point to the document's location.

    In other words, because CouchDB allows you to define the document ID before it is created, you can use PUT to pass that information upon creation. But if you want CouchDB to define its own document ID, you must use POST. This is consistent with the HTTP spec.

    Rails apps, on the other hand, typically do not allow you to define the ID of the record you are manipulating. It is assumed that the database, or at very least the application, knows how to handle this operation best. That is why creates are almost always POST for Rails apps. Again, this is consistent with the HTTP spec.

  • by Pengo (28814) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @10:51PM (#31057656) Journal

    We tried JRuby.

    We had various deployment problems, i'm sure that many people have managed to make it work, but we got about 2 days of trying to port in a medium-sized, high concurrent project, and we finally came to the conclusion that it's better to stay closer to the mainline c-based Ruby than diverge our project to JRuby and deal with the dangers of working on the bastard-project (when we talked to some of the guys at sun, back when we made the choice to give JRuby a try, there was only 3-4 paid employees working on it... it just felt too edgy for us, and we were looking to stabalize our project, not go down a lonely road of untested/unknown.... )

    As they say, sometimes it's better the demon you know , than the ones you don't.

    Disclaimer:

    1. We have had a LOT more success with rails, than failure. And we're getting a LOT more done now than before when doing struts/JSP/JDBC style dev.

    2. My lead developer wrote a book on Rails development for Oreilly, (rails handbook), he is leading our charge into Grails even having a substantial background in Ruby/Rails.

    I'd never say I regret doing our projects in Ruby, nor do I feel like JRuby would of solved my problems. I'm happy with Grails, and it has well complimented our teams capabilities and experience. We write code to solve problems and generate revenue, we don't have the luxory of coding at a well funded public company, we pay our mortgages and car payments from code we write every week. Ruby has met the challenge for us, but it's silly not to explore our options to try and make our new projects even more robust and improve our development, and our current dilemma of ongoing maintenance.

  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@@@slashdot...org> on Sunday February 07, 2010 @11:21PM (#31057848)

    What the...
    My friend, the fact that you misinterpreted my little funny and random word-play as having a “knee-jerk reaction” of an “ignorant troll” really shows, that you should go out more often, and have a little fun.
    Because you are starting to see assholes everywhere.

    See, the problem with text-only communication is, that we read it in the (inner) tone of voice of what we expect to read. Which is controlled by our own mood.
    So if we expect ignorant trolling everywhere, that’s what we will always see. Which makes them that, in our reality.

    And because I just recently realized that I did the same... man... it’s not good for you. You are getting angry where you could have a little laugh etc. Basically making your own life bad. :/

    Look at the moderators. They got it right, and even modded you funny, because of the good mood. :)
    Chill, relax, kiss a girl. :)

    P.S.: This is a dual-purpose comment. In case parent comment was really meant funny, it’s meant funny too. In case it’s not, this one also isn’t. :D

  • by rsax (603351) on Monday February 08, 2010 @12:34AM (#31058258)

    Thus they have made no allowance for dropping back to raw SQL queries.

    Ignoring your inaccurate remarks about the core Rails developers, do you care to expand on the above mentioned claim?

    count_by_sql: http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Base.html#M002276 [rubyonrails.org]

    find_by_sql: http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Base.html#M002267 [rubyonrails.org]

  • Re:Apple and Rails (Score:3, Informative)

    by arthur.gunn (1687888) on Monday February 08, 2010 @01:11AM (#31058400)

    ActiveRecord::Base.pluralize_table_names = false

    simple.

  • Re:Testing (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday February 08, 2010 @02:01AM (#31058628)
    In fact this is supposed to be a central idea behind comments in Ruby. It is usually much more important to indicate WHY your are doing something than HOW. Ideally, the how should be self-evident.
  • by Tacvek (948259) on Monday February 08, 2010 @03:12AM (#31058854) Journal

    Besides speed should hopefully become less of an issue once people migrate to Ruby 1.9 with YARV and eventually 2.0 which will hopefully have a decent JIT over top of the YARV bytecode (or something else perhaps) that should help significantly with the speed issues.

    (Especially if said JIT offers an unsafe optimization mode that makes certain documented assumptions about the code, like not changing the integer arithmetic methods, and other similar cases, the detecting of which can add significant overhead which many programs don't need, since they don't do that.)

  • Re:Testing (Score:2, Informative)

    by rgravina (520410) on Monday February 08, 2010 @04:04AM (#31059010)

    Yes, Django does have testing support, and Django itself is quite well tested - so I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is just that testing wasn't really a priority amoungst developers in the way it is in the Rails world. Things may have changed now.

    As for talking about professionalism, it's more just a case of being fustrated by developers not testing their code - and it happens in all languages (and I do it sometimes too). It's just less common a problem in Ruby/Rails in my experience.

  • by Per Wigren (5315) on Monday February 08, 2010 @04:29AM (#31059086) Homepage

    Somebody out there is just itching to write C on Crack.

    ...or COBOL ON COGS [coboloncogs.org].

  • by mini me (132455) on Monday February 08, 2010 @03:42PM (#31064608)

    In fact, the Rails team always promoted the fact that you can drop down to pure SQL when necessary as a feature of ActiveRecord. It is like there is some kind of distortion field between Rails developers and the rest of the world.

    What was said: We developed this handy framework to make web development more enjoyable for developers. We hope you enjoy it.

    What was heard: We developed this handy framework to allow everyone and their brother to build a web application. Fire those expensive programmers! They aren't needed anymore.

    What was said: We created a database abstraction library that simplifies common database operations. You can still drop down to the database level for the more complex operations, if necessary.

    What was heard: We created a database library that makes accessing a database easy enough that your grandma can do it. If you have to do anything more complex than select a few rows from a table, forget about it. P.S. And don't even think about adding a second web server to the mix as your app grows, it just ain't gonna work.

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...