[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: All Quiet on the Western Front: Is Rails overshadowing Ruby?

Ryan Leavengood

4/16/2005 11:38:00 PM

Jim Freeze <jim freeze.org> wrote:
> I've seen others make this same comment. I find it interesting
> that at RubyConf 2001 (the first Ruby conference) I heard multiple
> times that Ruby was not ready for web development.

Yep, I remember that. It is pretty amazing that a web framework could all of a
sudden make Ruby so much more marketable. The irony about myself is that it
took hearing about Rails from a coworker (and we don't even do web development
professionally) to bring me back into the Ruby fray. Not that I'd abandoned
what is still my favorite language, I just found it hard to keep up when I have
to do Java at work.

> I know rails is new, but I'm not sure that the language has made
> any significant changes to justify such an about face in opinion.

I think I'd have a pretty good perspective on that since I was around in the
RubyConf 2001 days and have been pretty much out of the Ruby community until
now. I agree, not too much has changed in the language (though I love
Enumerable#inject.) Even the list of libraries isn't that different. Though I'm
certainly aware of the additions that made RubyGems Part Deux easier to
implement than when I made the first RubyGems (of course I never really got
past prototype stage.)

> However, I think it is a lesson in how people can take
> their own opinion (or a common opinion) and believe in it as fact.
>
> Rails has opened the eyes of to many to what they could not see.
> David and his RubyOnRails is to Ruby what Michaelangelo and
> Michaelangelo's David are to a large of stone.

While the metaphor is colorful and amusing, I don't think I'd even go so far as
to say that. David is no doubt a smart guy and Rails is a cool system (from
what I've seen, I'm still a Rails newbie), but I think the success of Rails has
more to do with its simplicity and utility than any inherent "artistry."

David had a problem (implementing BaseCamp using Ruby), and he just solved his
own problem by creating Rails. I think too many people create solutions that
are looking for a problem instead of solving real problems.

> The only difference is that Ruby has more value than a large rock. :)
>
> It is also clear that some people just see the statue.
> But me, I see the process. I am waiting to see what gets
> created when another Michaelangelo comes along and finds Ruby.

I think Rails is just the tip of the iceberg. There are too many brilliant
people involved with Ruby for it not to have a bright future. The problem maybe
that too many of those people are "too close" to the language to create the
next Rails, so I agree we may need new blood to move forward. Or more of the
old hats need to learn how to step back and see Ruby from a fresh light.

Ryan Leavengood



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-t...
31 Answers

james_b

4/17/2005 12:43:00 AM

0

Ryan Leavengood wrote:
...
> I think I'd have a pretty good perspective on that since I was around in the
> RubyConf 2001 days and have been pretty much out of the Ruby community until
> now. I agree, not too much has changed in the language (though I love
> Enumerable#inject.) Even the list of libraries isn't that different. Though I'm
> certainly aware of the additions that made RubyGems Part Deux easier to
> implement than when I made the first RubyGems (of course I never really got
> past prototype stage.)

Rubygems has made a big difference for me. Whereas trying a new lib or
application was often a series of downloads, dependency searches, and
installation headaches, most libraries nowadays are a snap to install
and explore. Would Rails , for example, have been as successful if
people had to manually install the half-dozen or so required libraries?

Half the battle is getting people to at least try things.

Without rubygems, many a fine application would go underused.

>
>
>>However, I think it is a lesson in how people can take
>>their own opinion (or a common opinion) and believe in it as fact.
>>
>>Rails has opened the eyes of to many to what they could not see.
>>David and his RubyOnRails is to Ruby what Michaelangelo and
>>Michaelangelo's David are to a large of stone.
>
>
> While the metaphor is colorful and amusing, I don't think I'd even go so far as
> to say that. David is no doubt a smart guy and Rails is a cool system (from
> what I've seen, I'm still a Rails newbie), but I think the success of Rails has
> more to do with its simplicity and utility than any inherent "artistry."

Rails offers a good solution for a set of common problems, with
excellent packaging and promotion. The assorted code generators and
default settings lower the barrier to use, and you can get started
without having to think about too many things.

>
> David had a problem (implementing BaseCamp using Ruby), and he just solved his
> own problem by creating Rails. I think too many people create solutions that
> are looking for a problem instead of solving real problems.
>
>
>>The only difference is that Ruby has more value than a large rock. :)
>>
>>It is also clear that some people just see the statue.
>>But me, I see the process. I am waiting to see what gets
>>created when another Michaelangelo comes along and finds Ruby.

Aside from Matz, Ruby has yet to have its Michaelangelo. Maybe some
Warhols and Duchamps, though.


James

Francis Hwang

4/17/2005 1:08:00 AM

0

> Aside from Matz, Ruby has yet to have its Michaelangelo. Maybe some
> Warhols and Duchamps, though.

Arg. Please, everybody: It's "Michelangelo".

_why_ might be the closest we've got to a Duchamp, though he's probably
not ironic enough. But let's not conjecture as to who might be the
"Andy Warhol of Ruby": That might get nasty.

Francis Hwang
http://f...

Ryan Leavengood

4/17/2005 1:36:00 AM

0

James Britt wrote:
> Rubygems has made a big difference for me. Whereas trying a new lib or
> application was often a series of downloads, dependency searches, and
> installation headaches, most libraries nowadays are a snap to install
> and explore. Would Rails , for example, have been as successful if
> people had to manually install the half-dozen or so required libraries?
>
> Half the battle is getting people to at least try things.
>
> Without rubygems, many a fine application would go underused.

I definitely agree, as that is why I came up with the original idea for
RubyGems. Not that is was all that original, just a combination of a few
different things. The main point I was making was that the resurrection
of RubyGems after I stopped working on the original was helped along by
some useful new libraries, though nothing really extraordinary was
needed. Mostly I stopped because I just got overwhelmed and lazy and
moved on ;)

Also as useful as it is, RubyGems is really a facilitator and not
necessarily a piece of software that will draw people into using Ruby.
Originally I thought it would be a draw, but in reality I'm not so sure
(I'm a few years older and wiser.) But as you say it certainly does help
people to use things like Rails that are more of a draw.

> Aside from Matz, Ruby has yet to have its Michaelangelo. Maybe some
> Warhols and Duchamps, though.

I don't know, there are some people who can write some pretty fine
pieces of code. I'm just not sure how you can just the artistry of any
piece of code. Maybe it is just one of those QWAN (Quality Without A
Name) type things. Rubyists (or even people in general) just KNOW when
something is good.

Ryan Leavengood

dblack

4/17/2005 4:15:00 AM

0

Christian Neukirchen

4/17/2005 10:02:00 AM

0

James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> writes:

> Rubygems has made a big difference for me. Whereas trying a new lib
> or application was often a series of downloads, dependency searches,
> and installation headaches, most libraries nowadays are a snap to
> install and explore. Would Rails , for example, have been as
> successful if people had to manually install the half-dozen or so
> required libraries?

Eh, there is one tar.gz that contains all of Rails libraries, where's
the problem with that?

> James
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneuk...

David Heinemeier Hansson

4/17/2005 11:53:00 AM

0

>> Would Rails , for example, have been as successful if people had to
>> manually install the half-dozen or so required libraries?
>
> Eh, there is one tar.gz that contains all of Rails libraries, where's
> the problem with that?

Further more, Rails didn't support RubyGems until a couple of releases
in.

Where RubyGems has made a big difference, I think, is for upgrading and
trying out new versions of libraries you already have. So basically,
it's the library versioning that, to me, is one of the biggest draws of
RubyGems.

It's funny, though. I remember some early discussion on RubyGems where
someone pointed out that while library versioning was nice in theory,
but who would _really_ want to have multiple versions of the same
library installed? Hehe.

Killer features often only reveal themselves after people try it out on
real problems.

So while I don't think its significantly easier to first install
RubyGems, then gem Rails over just installing Rails from files, I think
RubyGems makes it much more enjoyable to follow the development of a
library or framework.

Of course, when RubyGems is included in 1.8.3 (hopefully or, pain,
pain, 1.8.4), I think that's when RubyGems will make its mark for
increasing the first-time visit of libraries on newbies coming to Ruby.


And thanks for all the kind words about Rails. Ruby is ripe to make a
similar splash in other areas than web applications. Can't wait to see
the next triumph push Ruby even further.
--
David Heinemeier Hansson,
http://www.basec... -- Web-based Project Management
http://www.rubyon... -- Web-application framework for Ruby
http://www.loudthi... -- Broadcasting Brain

Navindra Umanee

4/17/2005 3:28:00 PM

0

David Heinemeier Hansson <david@loudthinking.com> wrote:
> Of course, when RubyGems is included in 1.8.3 (hopefully or, pain,
> pain, 1.8.4), I think that's when RubyGems will make its mark for
> increasing the first-time visit of libraries on newbies coming to Ruby.

Oh no, RubyGems is going to be included by default in Ruby? :(

No offense, but I would really hate to *have* to use those stupid
looking RubyGem requires to use Ruby libraries...

-N.

Christian Neukirchen

4/17/2005 3:30:00 PM

0

David Heinemeier Hansson <david@loudthinking.com> writes:

>>> Would Rails , for example, have been as successful if people had to
>>> manually install the half-dozen or so required libraries?
>>
>> Eh, there is one tar.gz that contains all of Rails libraries, where's
>> the problem with that?
>
> Further more, Rails didn't support RubyGems until a couple of releases
> in.
>
> Where RubyGems has made a big difference, I think, is for upgrading
> and trying out new versions of libraries you already have. So
> basically, it's the library versioning that, to me, is one of the
> biggest draws of RubyGems.

Now, I didn't get too deep into Rails, but how would one practically
do that: Have several Rails projects, which all use different
versions of AR, AC etc...?

> And thanks for all the kind words about Rails. Ruby is ripe to make a
> similar splash in other areas than web applications. Can't wait to see
> the next triumph push Ruby even further.

> David Heinemeier Hansson,
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneuk...

dblack

4/17/2005 3:36:00 PM

0

gabriele renzi

4/17/2005 3:39:00 PM

0

Navindra Umanee ha scritto:
> David Heinemeier Hansson <david@loudthinking.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course, when RubyGems is included in 1.8.3 (hopefully or, pain,
>>pain, 1.8.4), I think that's when RubyGems will make its mark for
>>increasing the first-time visit of libraries on newbies coming to Ruby.
>
>
> Oh no, RubyGems is going to be included by default in Ruby? :(
>
> No offense, but I would really hate to *have* to use those stupid
> looking RubyGem requires to use Ruby libraries...

once it is builtin you would not need those. But AFAIK there are no
plans to include it yet.