Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Restructured Ruby on Rails 3.0 Hits Beta 197

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This discussion has been archived.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 metalhed77 ( 250273 ) <{andrewvc} {at} {}> on Sunday February 07, 2010 @07:21PM (#31055990) Homepage

    Please pick form the list below

    Ruby and/or Rails sucks because:
        1. It doesn't scale (Twitter)
        2. It's slow
        3. I read somewhere that Python was a better language
        4. I write PHP, I can do everything Ruby/Rails can do better
        5. My obnoxious younger coworker uses it
        6. It's not lightweight enough
        7. The ruby community is full of over-hyping zelous twits
    Ruby and/or Rails is awesome because:
        1. It scales within reason (Twitter, Lighthouse, Shopify)
        2. It's as fast as Python and PHP
        3. I read somewhere it was better than Python
        4. I used to write PHP, Ruby's been a godsend
        5. There are so many motivated and innovative people in the community
        6. It's featureful
        7. Pythonistas are over-hyping jealous twits

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07, 2010 @07:22PM (#31055996)

      7. The ruby community is full of over-hyping zelous twits

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        This is exactly true. Rails was in full-scale OMG hype mode before they even found an application server that worked properly or had a decent XML library. (Many of the fundamental building blocks only appeared because people bought into the hype and found that Rails, as promoted, was simply unusable for anything more than a low-traffic blog.)

        And I say this as a developer who really likes Rails, but the toy-developer nature of the community is it's biggest weakness IMO.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MadCat ( 796 )

          I gave RoR a chance and evaluated it for a while, and while RoR isn't bad, it's community is absolutely terrible. Help is hard to get, and more often than not a simple question leads to 5 people falling over eachother to call you stupid in various degrees, yet they are unable to actually offer any help. A large majority (from what I've seen) of the community can only follow the "hype" and treats the RoR dev team like deities, yet has no idea how to do certain things, how to properly structure and architect

          • I agree with your comments - but the merb community has been awesome. Now that the merb dudes are core contributors to Rails 3.0 there is some hope that they will "unsuck" the elitist/cult-of-personality mania in the core Rails community. In the end the guy running the community makes a big impact - get cool people like Brian Behelendorf evangelizing Apache, Linus Torvalds for Linux and you get open, interesting communities. DHH has turned RoR into a Steve Jobs look-a-like. Ezra Z (original author of merb)

      • If you ever want to attract lots of blog comments, there are 2 subjects to cover:-

        1. Apple.
        2. Ruby on Rails.

        Seriously, what put me off Rails was the utter zealotry of some of the people involved in it. Django is full of more sane folks.

        • Apple and Rails (Score:4, Insightful)

          by 200_success ( 623160 ) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @10:26PM (#31057106)
          Apple makes opinionated hardware. Rails is opinionated software. It's not surprising that the two fan bases act similarly. In fact, I would bet that there is a lot of overlap between the two groups.
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by edw ( 10555 )

            Yes, but while there may not be right and wrong opinions, opinions can definitely be either thoughtful or stupid. A case in point: Rails likes to give your database tables plural names. This is a stupid opinion. I explained this on #rubyonrails years ago, but it seems that the developers, DHH included, were so enamored with their pluralize method that they didn't want to rip it out and do the sane thing.

            It's convention over configuration, not instead of configuration, I read in another comment. Well, I trie

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              ActiveRecord::Base.pluralize_table_names = false


            • A case in point: Rails likes to give your database tables plural names...One of the reasons to prefer singular table names is that it improves Rails's interoperability with the applications that either want to supply data to or consume data created by Rails..

              Another reason is that it gets you closer to relational thinking. Plural names come about because some think of tables as collections of records and it follows that said collection should get a plural name. So, your "person" record becomes your "people

              • And I don't know how big of a performance hit pluralize yields

                It adds a couple of milliseconds to the startup time and that's about it. If you didn't manually specify a table name in the class, it will use the plural version of the class name and store that in the table_name variable when you start the app. Actually, most of Rails' "magic" is performed during application initialization (dynamically creating methods and setting variables) and after that it's (internally) just running code as usual.

                You can also just add config.active_record.pluralize_table_names = fal

            • I run a production rails app with pluralization turned off. I turned this feature off in 2006 and it worked fine then - it works fine now. I agree with you that this is a dumb feature.

          • by jeremyp ( 130771 )

            Imagine a discussion forum about developing with Rails on OS X (I just checked, rails is part of the standard OS X install). You'd probably need asbestos trousers for that discussion group.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You're absolutely right. After seeing widely-publicized incidents like the trademark shenanigans [] involving DHH, and then the blatant sexism at GoGaRuCo [], I refused to become associated with that community.

        As a professional, I don't want my name linked to such childish behavior. So I took Ruby and Ruby on Rails off of my resume in May of 2009, and have taken contracts dealing with Django and Python instead.

        Unlike the RoR community, the Python community somehow seems to be able to avoid petty arguments and bla

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Dhalka226 ( 559740 )

          Then again, the Python community is generally made of more experienced professionals interested in developing high-quality software applications, rather than 18-year-old college students "rebelling" against PHP to develop Web-2.0-buzzword-compliant web sites.

          You clearly gave Rails a fair chance there, didn't you?

          Perhaps your really silly reasoning for "taking Ruby on Rails off [your] resume" was really nothing more than self-selecting against a platform you had already decided was worse than one you clear

      • by metalhed77 ( 250273 ) <{andrewvc} {at} {}> on Sunday February 07, 2010 @09:44PM (#31056882) Homepage

        7. The ruby community is full of over-hyping zelous twits

        You know, I wrote my post as a joke, to hopefully prevent stupid comments like yours. That yours was modded (twice) up is proof of the juvenile partisanship present here on slashdot.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Ruby on Rails is a religion, not a serious programming language.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Foofoobar ( 318279 )
      You forgot Groovy and Grails does it better :)
      • by Hurricane78 ( 562437 ) <deleted.slashdot@org> on Sunday February 07, 2010 @07:30PM (#31056062)

        What about F#lukie and FAILs?

        Or Gravel and Nails? (Chuck Norris’ favorite morning cereal.)

        Or Gravy and Meats? (Favorite British breakfast, I guess... especially in pie form. ;)

        • Pearl on Paths

          Diamond on Driveways

          Topaz on Tracks

          Sapphire on Streets

          Aquamarine on Avenues

        • by Foofoobar ( 318279 ) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @07:53PM (#31056190)
          Actually Groovy and Grails are Java native. No need to interpret via JRuby. Groovy is native Java code as is Grails.

          But being the ignorant troll that you are, your kneejerk response shows how little you know about these technologies and that you must have confused Slashdot with another one of your Facebook pages.
          • by Hurricane78 ( 562437 ) <deleted.slashdot@org> on Monday February 08, 2010 @12:21AM (#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

          • Actually Groovy and Grails are Java native. No need to interpret via JRuby.

            There is no reason to "interpret" via JRuby in any case. JRuby provides an AOT compiler (jrubyc) that compiles Ruby code to Java bytecode; in addition, the normal mode of operation for JRuby is to do JIT compilation on method bodies when first encountered and then execute the compiled method from then on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Yvan256 ( 722131 )

      Ruby and/or Rails sucks because:
      8. None of the local web hosting services offer it except in their most expensive packages, all we get for the low-cost packages is XSSI, PHP and Perl.

      • Well, if you want good, cheap rails hosting you could easily do Dreamhost or Heroku. I'd go with Heroku, they'll scale up pretty well.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by PCM2 ( 4486 )

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

      • has Ruby web app hosting for $5 per year.

        Google App Engine offers JRuby hosting for free, though you have to deal with App Engine's miserable Java performance problems.

        • And the biggest "problem" there is the lag while they spin up an instance of your app. The most promising thing I've seen about that is a proposal to cache a JRuby image as Java bytecode -- that should drop us back closer to Java spin-up times, which really aren't that bad now.

          • Java loads on App Engine are so slow, even a Java "hello world" app will occasionally time out. Java spin-up times are typically OK (1-4 seconds usually) but are occasionally and unpredictably unacceptable.

      • by Draek ( 916851 )

        Shouldn't that be the other way around? local web hosting services suck because none of them offers Ruby and/or Rails in their low-cost packages.

        Yeah, yeah, grandma won't care whose fault it is when she can't run her knitting patterns e-store, but put the blame where its due. It's not Rails' fault that web hosting services won't offer a language worth shit unless you pay for the priviledge.

    • The magic of math, my response is a sum of two of my answers: 10.
      Now guess what my answers were...
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by s_p_oneil ( 795792 )

      Good post, but IMO it's a shame you left this one out:

      Ruby and/or Rails sucks because:
      8) It doesn't use spacing to delineate code blocks

      Ruby and/or Rails is awesome because:
      8) It doesn't use spacing to delineate code blocks

    • Ruby's a great language with a mediocre runtime (but getting better) and Rails is a great idea with massive breakage and version dependency problems among minor versions. Maybe that just means it's not done yet, but, man, stuff should work on 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 the same way and Rails 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 should cause huge breakage (I'm only recalling those versions from memory, apply fuzz).

      • The Ruby and Rails core groups have both been excellent about documenting any issues, and also offering plenty of warning and deprecation time before features are changed or dropped. If minor version changes in Ruby or Rails are not getting along with some of your Gems or Plugins, I would start looking at the suppliers of those Gems and Plugins, not Ruby or Rails.
        • Bullshit. I remember very clearly the 1.8.x AND the 2.2.x upgrade issues. Both these updates broke my app - not the gems, the core application. I was using features they removed or changed without deprecation warnings. It took me only about 2 hours to figure out the issues and repair them in both cases, but core libs were broken silently by the Rails core in both those version releases.

    • My pick:

      Ruby sucks because:

      2. It's slow
      7. The ruby community is full of over-hyping zelous twits

      Rails sucks because:

      6. It's not lightweight enough

      Ruby is awesome because:

      4. I used to write PHP, Ruby's been a godsend
      5. There are so many motivated and innovative people in the community
      6. It's featureful

      Full disclosure:

      Ruby sure isn't perf

  • by dino213b ( 949816 ) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @07:24PM (#31056026)

    I'm glad first responses are so negative; now I don't have to bother trying ROR out.

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      "First responses" were years ago. The people who are still bitching about it are people who have not gotten to know it well.

      I have many years experience in programming, but I have spent the last 4+ doing Ruby, and Ruby on Rails. And I love it. I have yet to find something another languages and frameworks do that RoR will not, and usually RoR does it simpler and more easily.

      It does in fact scale quite well, and while it is relatively slow, all interpreted dynamic languages are.

      There is a learning cu
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Tacvek ( 948259 )

        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 wh

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

    Over at Ruby Inside we did (and are maintaining) a roundup of ~36 Rails 3.0 beta links/articles [] (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.. :-)

  • TPS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Luke Psywalker ( 869266 ) on Monday February 08, 2010 @03:06AM (#31058644)
    Funny, I first read about ROR on Slashdot 3 years ago, back around the 1.0 release. The only negative things anyone said back then were quips about DHH's Danish accent. Now it's matured into the finest open source development web development stack available, powering many successful web apps and all I see here are the people who should be supporting it on principles alone talking smack about it.
    • It depends on what you are doing with it: ROR makes some things extremely easy, and others extremely hard. If your website is mostly about doing the easy stuff, it's great. If your requirements are all about what ROR isn't any good at, ROR is worse than a dozen other frameworks, where you pay a larger upfront cost for more flexibility.

    • Now it's matured into the finest open source development web development stack available

      Tsk, tsk, you kids. I think you'll find that Spring is what you're really looking for. It's built on top of a real programming language as well, not some bastard offspring of Perl and Python like Ruby.

      • Having used both Rails (1.something) and Spring (2.something), I can tell you which I prefer.

        Hint: it's not the one that tosses out the compile-time checking and performance of your so-called real programming language by having you write everything in XML.

        Also, I much prefer the bastard child of several useful and expressive programming languages to a language that has set the world back a decade or so by having people re-invent and re-implement things that were working years before it.

        Apologies if this com

"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." -- a saying at RPI