Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming Ruby IT

Ruby Clouds: Engine Yard Vs. Heroku 41

Posted by samzenpus
from the silverest-lining dept.
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Andrew Glover provides an in-depth comparison of Engine Yard and Heroku, two cloud-based, platform-as-a-service offerings for Ruby development. 'To put it simply, Heroku will appeal more to developers and Engine Yard will appeal to operations folks. Consequently, when evaluating the two platforms, one's choice usually comes down to what's more important: Heroku's rapid deployment via a hands-off infrastructure, or Engine Yard's total control over all aspects of application deployment, provisioning, and monitoring.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ruby Clouds: Engine Yard Vs. Heroku

Comments Filter:
  • by matthewmacleod (1711466) <matt@@@matt-m...co...uk> on Thursday December 01, 2011 @09:23AM (#38225220)
    I love Heroku's approach to offering a base tier for free. It makes it really simple of throw up a quick app at no cost (four or file commands) and it's dead easy to scale. It's expensive compared to self-hosting though (obviously) and there are some restrictions that chafe a bit now and then, but it's pretty cool!
  • imo buy a dedicated server with managed support. The op's will be happy because they can SSH in & developers will be happy because they can ticket the hosting company for changes. Clouds have a purpose but nothing beats a dedicated box for cost/performance (you can get a decent one for $250 now a days)
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Ruby is a giant stinking turd written by a bunch of clowns with little grasp of how computers work.

    Don't think so? Read this:

    Ruby bug 5244 [ruby-lang.org]

    Yeah, Ruby completely misuses setjmp()/longjmp() throughout its code. Yet get this:

    Ruby's callcc copies stack to heap, then calls setjmp(). Stack frames are restored from the copy before longjmp(). -- Shugo Maeda

    You moron - read the fucking man pages for setjmp()/longjmp(). Since when is copying a stack off somewhere a sufficient condition in allowing one to arbitrarily restrictions placed on a system call?

    And we're supposed to think such crap ideas don't permeate Ruby through and through?

  • Try out openshift (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01, 2011 @11:08AM (#38225996)

    While I am a fan of both of these services, I really enjoy using openshift more. OpenShift is completely free and supports ruby, python, perl, java, and PHP.

    For those who don't know, OpenShift is Red Hat's free platform as a service all running on top of RHEL.
    --

    • by mcvos (645701)

      Free as in costing no money whatsoever? Does it scale at all? Sounds like a big money pit.

      • by mpetnuch (717102)
        Well the software is free, you can download and run it on your own server (Express) or you can have it run via your Amazon EC2 account (Flex), which is not free. So while the software is free, the computer time is not (although I think will pay for your first 30 Amazon EC2 hours to try it out).
        • by mcvos (645701)

          Do it's a platform without the infrastructure to run it on. Interesting idea, but not really what people generally mean with PaaS.

  • There are a jillion places where I can run PHP + MySQL. Every web hosting company on the planet probably.

    Ruby on Rails? Probably less than 1 in 4 support it, and many of those that do don't do a good job.

    Why? Why is RoR so specialized?

  • Manga (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01, 2011 @12:40PM (#38227084)

    I admit I am not a big follower of Japanese manga, that's why I probably never heard of Ruby Clouds: Engine Yard vs. Heroku, but is it any good?

  • by Genda (560240) <[mariet] [at] [got.net]> on Thursday December 01, 2011 @06:11PM (#38232026) Journal

    Design a platform composed from the ground up as a collection of clean, interlocking modular blocks, Those blocks are designed to allow the developer to choose from a wide range of functionality and would be designed to make platform extensibility a natural process. As the library of functionality grew, 99% of the time you could just pull a few blocks out, connect them and you'd be off to the races. If you needed anything new or particularly esoteric, you could just create a new block, and when done add it to the library so others could enjoy the fruits of your labor in the future (as you enjoyed theirs now.)

    I'm tired of looking at 20 different systems with 20 different sets of advantages and disadvantages. Make the app platform core module uber-tight and way fast (maybe something LISPish.) Create a simple abstraction module that provided a smooth and consistent interface so library modules could easily be written in or ported to any popular language. Of course there would be the classes of modules to support various file types and interactions, network protocols and interaction, maybe natural language or device dependent smart formatting, you could start with all kinds of goodies in the cupboard. Build the thing from the ground up to sit on a hardware abstraction layer that allows the application to leverage any and all hardware and network resources available to it. This would allow you to tune the beasty to its selected environment without the need of screwing with the platform engines configuration.

    Is it just me, or isn't there now sufficient experience and information available both from the "using end" and the "designing end" to build a platform that is both flexible enough to assimilate new technology, fully utilize existing technology and provide basic services that most of us seem to be asking for on fairly regular basis. I'm not interested in religious wars. I just want to be able to slap something together without getting a doctorate in the silly thing or go through a 2 year learning curve because the tech keeps changing under my feet.

    Then again maybe I'm just pissing and moaning to myself and a holy grail is just a silly myth. I'd be interested to see how others feel?

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken

Working...