Is Rails much better for interactive website compare to Django? - ruby-on-rails

Just got a new website project for my company internal use. The whole website isn't that complicating but requires quite a lot of real time interaction. Basically, it's an interactive time line table where we can freely drag and drop each elements to move and resize them.
At first I wanted to use this opportunity to learn Python+Django (I'm given a huge amount of time) but then I read around and a lot of people mentioned Rails is better for creating rich interactive website.
So, for a website with a lot of drag & drop interaction like this, is Rails really the better choice? Is Rails built-in ajax that much easier to work with compare to Django+jQuery? How flexible and customizable is Rails' built-in ajax? I want to learn RoR just as much as Python by thee way.

I don't think AJAX functionality will define which framework you find yourself preferring.
I can't answer most of your question relating to ajax, but still think this post could be useful for you: it's highlighting a huge difference between ROR and django -- mainly RoR uses magic, django doesn't.
I prefer django for exactly that. Others may prefer RoR for the same reason I don't.
What's wrong with "magic"?
Rails' developers are of the opinion
that this sort of "magic" is a good
thing because it makes it easier to
quickly get something working, and
doesn't bore you with lots of details
unless you want to reach in and start
overriding things.
Django's developers are of the opinion
that this sort of "magic" is a bad
thing because doesn't really save all
that much time (a few import
statements isn't a big deal in the
grand scheme of things), and has the
effect of hiding what's really going
on, making it harder to work out how
to override stuff, or harder to debug
if something goes wrong.
Both of these are, of course, valid
stances to take, and generally it
seems that people just naturally
gravitate to one or the other; those
who like the "magic" congregate around
Rails or frameworks which try to
emulate it, those who don't congregate
around Django or frameworks which try
to emulate it (and, in a broader
sense, these stances are somewhat
stereotypical of Ruby and Python
developers; Ruby developers tend to
like doing things one way, Python
developers tend to like doing things
another way).
So I think one will click for you regardless of out of the box ajax support.

Speaking as someone who mostly works on Rails, I would say take a day with each framework, follow a "getting started" screencast or tutorial, or pick up a book. ( For rails, I recommend Beginning Rails 3 ). Then, keep going with whichever one you feel more comfortable with.
One amazing resource rails has is Railscasts. Railscasts almost single-handedly converted me from PHP to ROR. I don't know if Django has a similar volume of quality screencasts available or not.
All frameworks are pretty heavily focused on the server-side of the equation. Now, Rails has a lot of things that help make writing views (your drag and drop stuff) nice, such as HAML (a fantastic template language)... and while I don't know enough to post links I'm sure Django has similar helpers. It's worth noting that both Django and Rails can use jQuery or any other javascript framework.
But, in the end, just by the nature of the web as stateless, there's going to be a degree of independence between your client-side templates and javascript, and what's serving that from the server side.
The real question you should probably be focused on is: Do you want to become a jQuery ninja, or do you want to scale up a notch and focus on Javascript itself, perhaps using tool suites like MooTools or Prototype. Your drag and drop stuff is client-side, so that's where your toughest decisions will have to be made.
Good luck!

I used to worry about things like this and would try new frameworks all the time because people would say it was a big improvement over the last one I was using until I realised I wasn't doing anything. Now I just pick one and stick with it. The fact that I know it much better than any others means I am more productive, even though the other frameworks probably include nice little tricks and shortcuts, and because I know it better I can debug problems faster.
Basically what I am trying to say is that just about every popular web framework can do everything that you want it to. Some are better than others but what really matters is that you become an expert in at least one of them. Being able to dabble in lots is not helpful, you really need to know one inside and out. Committing some code to the project helps this process.

Mainly depends on which programming language you prefer to work and most comfortable with. Some prefer the flexible syntax of Ruby others like the cleanliness of Python. Also need to take into consideration the production environment (aka what OS is it going to be hosted on).

Django does not do interactive web applications, it is agnostic to the whole "frontend" part, this is done in Javascript with little to no support from Django (except for transferring data from AJAX calls).
So if you want to use Django for this, you will have not only to learn Python but also to learn loads of Javascript.
I like this solution as hand-written Javascript feels a lot clearer than any of these generating tools to me, plus there are plenty of libraries that make writing advanced Javascript GUIs a breeze these days, check out Jquery UI or ExtJS.
From there, the server side will only be AJAX calls that (de)serialize data in JSON, nothing else.

Both Rails and Django are good. Try them both out and see which you like better.

Related

Backbone.js or Ember.js with Ruby on Rails

I was looking for information comparing Ember.js and Backbone.js for use with a Ruby on Rails backend. Does anyone have experience working with both of these client side frameworks and would be willing provide some insight around them?
Both are great, and you can't make a bad choice imho.
There is a good thread on this subject on Quora, with an answer from one on the Ember.js author, Yehuda Katz: http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-Ember-js-formerly-SproutCore-2-0-and-Backbone-js
A quote from the thread (Austin Bales)
A lot of the differences between the two come down to this: SC2/Ember have made a few decisions in advance about the tools and workflows you'll use. Backbone has very few opinions on matters of templating, rendering, hierarchy, and KVO/Binding – in Backbone there's almost always "More Than One Way To Do It" and almost never a predefined way. In contrast, Ember provides a little more infrastructure and default options out of the box.
The fact that Ember.js is opinionated is probably a good thing in the long run I'd say. It's kind of the same philosophy as rails where they often make choices for you.
I actually have to make this choice at work as well. I tried working a little bit with both, and I have to say, I feel more confortable with Backbone, but it's really not a well informed opinion ;)
ps: check this out: http://addyosmani.github.com/todomvc/
It's a todo app implemented with all the popular frameworks. It could help you compare the two.
edit: Since I wrote this answer, I've been trying to learn Ember, and I'm really liking it. Here is an AWESOME blog about ember, everything is very well explained, clear, in depth: http://darthdeus.github.com/.
Ideally, you would master both, as I feel that they have different use cases now.
Gordon Hempton has written a nice article about JS frameworks here: http://codebrief.com/2012/01/the-top-10-javascript-mvc-frameworks-reviewed/

Best technology option for implementing RIA with Rails as the backend?

I'm working on a application that requires a feature-rich media view, including images, videos, and smooth sequencing based on capture time. The backend is currently written in Rails.
What's currently the best, most mature option for implementing RIAs with Rails on the backend? I've looked at Flex, Laszlo, and ExtJS. ExtJS is interesting to me because I'm really not a fan of pure Flash UIs, but it seems highly targeted towards business apps, not entertainment applications like this.
Any suggestions or insights from others doing similar efforts will be very much appreciated.
Thanks!
I second zdmytriv for that book Flexible Rails, it's awesome. It's fairly outdated now though but lays out how simple it is to create a solid Project Management application with Flex and Rails. Everything in there has now become "RestfulX".
Check out RestfulX, it's a must. The RestfulX Google Group is very active too and they've made a lot easy.
We built this website in Flex with RestfulX and it was very easy. That application uses the Rails Paperclip gem to do image processing in a Flex admin panel like ScrapBlog (Scrapblog was built in Flex), and we could use some cool layout effects built into Flex 4. RestfulX made that pretty easy, and the gems made it even easier :p. They have generators too like Rails so it's real easy to get up and running with a DataGrid/CMS-like interface in 5 minutes.
I don't know anything about the other things you've mentioned, but I do know that it's pretty fun and easy to integrate Flex with Rails now-a-days.
As a side note, you can do hardcore SEO with Flex and Rails too, thanks to SWFAddress. We're doing that with that site above.
Cheers
I can recommend Flex and also this book Flexible Rails, whole book dedicated Flex with Rail cooperation. List of sample applications from the book here
Flexible Rails http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QysfVDlVL._SL500_AA240_.jpg
If you're serious about considering Ext as an option, you should really search and maybe post in their forums about others using Rails, I know there are quite a few doing so successfully. I just ran across this example that seems like a pretty fully-baked app doing just that, so it's definitely possible.
Without knowing exactly what you're trying to do, I think that saying Ext is "targeted towards business apps" is a fair general statement, in terms of the widgets that come with it out of the box. It's highly geared toward window/form-based Ajax apps. That said, Ext Core is very similar to jQuery and other core frameworks, and everything in Ext is built to be highly extensible (hence, "ext"). In terms of being able to build what you need off of it, it is very powerful and flexible. You can certainly implement a flash viewer easily, and there are existing plugins that will do exactly that.
Sounds like Toby had a bad experience with Ext, but many other people enjoy it and find it very natural to code in. The syntax definitely has a Java/C# flavor to it in some ways (although it's really hard to directly compare any JS framework to a static language), and it has roots in YUI (which is even more verbose). For someone coming from C-ish backgrounds, it will likely feel very comfortable. If you're more used to Python or Ruby or something else, then it might not be as enjoyable, I don't know. Something you'd have to try for yourself.
Take a look at WebOrb from themidnightcoders.com. Among many features, it allows for AMF protocol for serialization of data. It is smoking fast.
IMO, if you want a true RIA experience, you'll need to focus on either Flex or Silverlight. There are pros and cons to each.
I did a GWT project a while back and am working with Ext right now. I have some C# / Swing GUI experience, none in Flash.
I like Ext a lot. It looks great, and I found the programming model close enough to the C#'s and Swings of the world as to be familiar and fairly pleasant. The documentation is not excellent, but definitely good enough. For Java at least, there is a solid remoting mechanism (third party, called DJN... most likely there are others, too). A couple of minor bugs here and there.
The major negative is support. They have a forum but there are a distressingly large number of questions and problems that go unresolved. They have paid support in theory, but were sufficiently unresponsive to basic 'how does your paid support work' type questions that I was not encouraged to buy any. There is only one book that I know of, it looks promising but it is not out yet.
I found GWT impressive and had no real problems, but at the end of of the day I am much happier with Ext.
Have you taken a look at Google Web Toolkit yet? In my opinion it's a great way to build rich and performant web applications. The toolkit is quite mature (Google Wave is build with it) and has a lot of good tools to make development easy.
Here's a previous Stakoverflow post.
I don't know about best, but I did a project using ExtJS and hated every minute of it. Frustratingly verbose code, overly complicated programming model, confusing documentation, and difficult to make it do anything it didn't want to.
That said, it looks very awesome, has incredibly powerful widgets and the client and users loved it.
I haven't helped at all, have I?
I think if you requirements include doing anything with video and audio, you are going to need a Flash solution.
Take a look at netzke -- client-server components with Sencha Ext JS and Ruby on Rails.
Netzke is a framework that allows for a beautiful blend of client- and
server-side code (JavaScript and Ruby, respectively) into ready-to-use
GUI components. It's most useful for creating complex data-rich
backend applications with Ruby on Rails on the back end, and Sencha
Ext JS in the browser.

Should I refactor with hobo?

I have a created a userdriven gallery with Ruby on Rails.The site is using a few plugins to create friendly links, permissions, pageless pagniation etc. The application controllers and views has gotton quite complex and I find it difficult and very time consuming to work with. So I thought about rebuilding the app with hobo, as it includes all the user and permission logics and another template system. However I am affraid that I will be to limited, or maybe not win anything becasue I will loss a lot of time hacking hobo. I am planning to add frinedships and personal messing to my website. Could this be to compelx for hobo? Does hobo use jquery?
Best regards.
Asbjørn Morell.
Hobo is not that complex, however you would need to study documentation which takes some time. But, in the long-run any refactoring such as Hobo could help, if the code is currently getting unmaintainable.
JQuery can be used in any sytsem as it is independent of script frameworks etc. AFAIK,
No one can tell you if Hobo will help your specific program.
That said, I have been using Hobo for a while and I have found it to be very effective. It handles a good part of the standard rails logic every site needs (such as routes). The dryml system has been useful in my work as well, reducing the size and complexity of my views.
If your code is becoming unmaintainable and you feel a refractor is necessary, you could definitely do worse than Hobo.
i have been building a few hobo apps and they work rock solid, problem is dryml is quite peculiar and you must learn and do a lot of test and try, but in the end it allways comes along quite nicely. i recommend you start quickly with hobo and you will end up faster..!!

Building a mutliplayer game site

I am building a site that has a lot in common with a person-on-person chess site. I was thinking of using Rails for the front-end(User Registration, Navigation, etc) and something like Scala or Erlang for the engine(Game state and maybe AI). I was wondering -
Is this a good situation to use that type of design?
How exactly would be best to divide up the functionality between the components?
How would they best communicate with each other?
I'm open to any technologies or ideas.
If you're using Rails for the front-end, why not use Ruby?
If you like the idea of using Scala, why not use Lift for the front-end?
Chess is turn-based, and has a very simple board that can be handled with HTML and/or Javascript enhancements - so the basic model flows quite nicely with existing web frameworks.
With this in mind, Rails is a great choice for creating a web-based application. Rails is not just limited to crud applications, and in fact I think can write your entire app in Rails/Ruby - you don't really need to have an external engine.
Within the browser space, polling for turn updates can be done using XMLHttpRequest and a database can maintain the current game and turn state.
Looks like a simple Lift application to me. I'm not experienced with Lift, mind you, but it doesn't seem particularly more complex than the chat application that is so often demoed.
I would start by reading http://www.htdp.org/ How to Design Programs. The questions you have asked are very broad and difficult to answer without prefixing statements with "I believe that..."
I would code it in clojure (but that's just me).
I'm currently developing a suite of online games, using Scala. It's been absolutely fantastic - my game logic is much easier to get right with the static typing etc, and dealing with server/client protocol (a flash client, in this case) is made simpler via the use of Google Protocol Buffers.
If you're a huge fan of RoR, by all means use that. I think most statically typed languages are terrible to program websites in (Java, I'm looking at you here), but Scala gets rid of 90% of the pain, and gives even more safety.
Of course, it might not be your cup of tea. But I'd try just doing the entire thing in Scala, and adding another layer if that doesn't quite do it for you.
For question 1 Yes
And for 2 and 3 you need to give more information in order to get an answer that could help you.
Now I'm doing something like you but for the front end I'm going to use Grails. The reason are very simple: I like Grails, Scala and I want to mix them :)

can users who have used both Django and Ruby on Rails give a little comparison of using them?

Duplicate: Django or Ruby-On-Rails?
I have been reading on Ruby on Rails, and it seems like on some threads, some users like Django a lot too?
Can someone who have used both give some insight about using them, such as
ease of use
productivity
fun factor
deployment issues
or any other framework you'd highly recommend?
Both are excellent frameworks. Though, I've found Rails to be more suited for the agile developer. For the most part, you'll run some generators to get the files you need as placeholders for your code. Things will work right away, and you just build up from these conventions. It's really flexible and has a large community, lots of innovation and interesting practices are being put into Rails. It's development cycle seems faster paced than Django.
After only touching the surface with Django, it has some interesting differences. As far as I know, you don't get the schema migrations like Rails has out of the box. But you get an extremely simple CRUD mechanism for your models with the extensible admin interface, which is great for testing/managing content. The entire project is documented really well, from the Django Book to the vast amount of information on docs.djangoproject.com.
I personally prefer the Rails way of doing things. But honestly, you need to try them both to see what works for you, and since we're talking about two very good, yet totally different frameworks, it's a tough decision to make either way. So, if you already know Ruby or Python well enough, start with what you know and just go from there. Once you understand how one works, you'll be able to evaluate the smaller differences yourself. Hope that helps.

Resources