As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 12 years ago.
It's been shown that Ruby On Rails isn't especially fast in a performance perspective. Even PHP may be faster, but obviously there's other things that adds up to the cons of Ruby On Rails. Development speed is among those and commonly mentioned by people as one of ROR's biggest strengths.
However I have not seen any objective opinions on this. Does Ruby On Rails really help to keep development speeds lower than other web application programming languages?
This is a very controversial subject (in fact, I expect this to get closed!).
I would argue that RoR can deliver faster development, but only if you're doing it right. The fact that it's so opinionated about some of the common tasks that come up during most development encourages you to do it right... it makes testing easier, for example, and virtually forces you to keep view logic separate from models.
And that said, performance wise, Rails 3 isn't exactly slow! In fact, I've found it (in my own, completely unscientific experiments) to perform better than Zend Framework for PHP.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I have spent some time familiarizing myself with
rails (ruby),
django...and other things like zope and pylons/pyramid (python),
catalyst (perl)
but often find myself wanting to use
sinatra (ruby)
bottle...or flask...(python)
dancer...(perl)
I'm not entirely sure...when I'm about to start a new project, which I should use.
What should be the deciding factor that makes me switch from a micro framework to something more substantial. Is it just when I would otherwise have too much SQL to write? I think not, because if that were the case I could just use an ORM library/module.
My main issue is a fear of choosing something that other developers would not understand if someone else needed to fix the site at a later point in time. Still I am still not sure what should inform my opinion.
With miсro frameworks you have more freedom in the use of libraries, you can add what you think is right. In large frameworks such as Django and etc already much that is "screwed" and there are certain rules and best practices how best to write certain things.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I started learning ruby on rails few weeks ago. I don't completely understand metaprogramming yet, but first I want to ask whether metaprogramming is worth learning if I only want to use ruby on rails to build websites. The example I see for metaprogramming is for generating undefined class method on the fly, but is it necessary?
My background: I use python on a daily base for scientific computing and have limited experience with django.
Metaprogramming is by no means a requirement to writing websites.
If you're beginning to program in Ruby, it's probably best not to worry about it until you're much more familiar with the language. The added flexibility it affords you comes at the expense of complexity and obscurity.
It depends entirely on the functionality of the website. Learn the basic idea of meta programming , then carry on with what you're doing. You'll then know if you are trying to solve something that meta programming would help with, and you can dig in more.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I've started learning RoR and I really like it - but it feels like it's oriented in one specific way - a very basic MVC model.
Which type of web application might not benefit from using RoR? Are there any signs I can find while planning the architecture?
I don't think there's a specific technical reason not to use RoR - it's fast, clean and can probably do anything PHP does.
The only reasons I can think of are the same consideration as to any other technology : Do you have the right people, is the legacy code (if any) compatible, are you in a market that makes it easy to find RoR people to support the code, and so forth.
There's also a nice Quora thread about this question :
If you have to install your website on a client machine that does not support rails/ruby.
If your code needs to be maintained afterwards by people that do not have rails knowledge.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Is the Ruby language, specially when used in the context of a framework like Ruby on Rails, ready for building large systems with complex business logic and advanced mechanisms, keeping its productivity edge and maintainability?
Can it replace Java EE?
This question is a bit subjective, and "replace Java EE" goes a little far, but you can certainly build scalable enterprise grade applications in Ruby on Rails.
My observation of the Ruby ecosystem, however, is that there are more platform dependencies that can trip you up and the variety of third party libraries to bring in complimentary functionality may not be as wide as you would get in Java.
On the other hand, the gems infrastructure is pretty neat and line-for-line you will get more function out of less actual code in ruby.
Finally, and this may matter as you need to scale up a team, I think it is easier to find experienced Java EE devs than it is to find experienced Rails devs.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I have seen many people use MySQL, some Postgres and I know I have seen an Oracle adapter somewhere. But really - what should I use just starting out with my first Rails apps?
If you ask such question then probably there is no real difference for you.
Usually a specific DBMS is selected depending on:
Infrastructure limitations (e.g. Heroku provides only Postgres by
default).
Personal preferences (a space of endless holywars).
If you don't have neither first nor second, then choose the most popular, because the most popular means the most supported.
Your first app you should just use sqlite because it's easy and there's no setup required. You'll have enough to worry about with the rails framework, ruby, tdd, etc. Once you get better you should look into postgres. It's what is used by Heroku and most of the rubyists I admire mention their preference for postgres over MySql. I'm sorry but I don't have any specific links for this bias but I've seen it mentioned many times.