What’s Up With All These Changes in Rails? • Hacker News Board

Re: What’s Up With All These Changes in Rails?

#111

Post by caiusdurling » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 5:24 PM UTC

rapind wrote: post #101

jamesbritt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, thanks, my mistake. Not coupled. But still, there is a strong presumption that your app will use a database and wants a database.yml. The few times I've wanted to just start a Rails app with simple Erb, with models representing data concepts (but not necessarily SQL anything), and evolve out to using a database (if and when needed), have been frustrating. It's something that has been easy to do in some other fram…

Yeah you can think of rails as requiring a database. You can pretty easily substitute whatever you want at the database level (sqlite3, mysql, postgresql, mongodb, even redis!), but it's the convention that you'll need to store and retrieve data in your webapp. If you don't need to do this (edge case for most of us), then try a different framework like sinatra that isn't accompanied by all the database bloat. If you'…

As of rails 3 (was sort of true in 2 as well) you really don't need a database. I've written two rails 3 apps recently that have no database, they're effectively a thin graphical client for a couple of JSON APIs.

Works well, just don't require ActiveRecord and hey presto, your app doesn't have a database (or db rake tasks, etc).

Re: What’s Up With All These Changes in Rails?

#112

Post by trustfundbaby » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 5:54 PM UTC

mnutt wrote: post #71

trustfundbaby wrote: post #18

I appreciate the post and am a huge fan of Yehuda, he used my comments as teeing off points for your remarks but I feel that what I was trying to say has been lost in his response, probably because I was unclear. Lets start with this ... "The Rails core team does seem to treat the project as if it’s a personal playground" This was said more in frustration with the coffeescript/sass decision than any real belief that…

Do assets in public/ break in 3.1? Sure, it's encouraged, but I'm pretty sure if you tell your web server to point to public/ it will serve your static assets from there. As far as I know you can upgrade your existing rails app from 3.0 to 3.1 and start using asset pipelining on your own schedule.

It seems like you're not seeing the forest for the trees, with respect to what I'm saying.

I don't need help upgrading. I just think the Rails core team should do releases in such a way that big features which drastically change the way Rails does things, aren't put in the pipeline back to back, like this was (3.0, then 3.1) that way Rails doesn't get a reputation for constantly redoing the "Rails Way".

Re: What’s Up With All These Changes in Rails?

#113

Post by rapind » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 5:55 PM UTC

caiusdurling wrote: post #111

rapind wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you can think of rails as requiring a database. You can pretty easily substitute whatever you want at the database level (sqlite3, mysql, postgresql, mongodb, even redis!), but it's the convention that you'll need to store and retrieve data in your webapp. If you don't need to do this (edge case for most of us), then try a different framework like sinatra that isn't accompanied by all the database bloat. If you'…

As of rails 3 (was sort of true in 2 as well) you really don't need a database. I've written two rails 3 apps recently that have no database, they're effectively a thin graphical client for a couple of JSON APIs. Works well, just don't require ActiveRecord and hey presto, your app doesn't have a database (or db rake tasks, etc).

It would never occur to me to write something non data-driven using Rails... because to me Rails is rapid development platform for data-driven webapps.

Interesting that people do though. Any particular reason? What features of Rails did you still use? Seems like an odd use case.

Re: What’s Up With All These Changes in Rails?

#114

Post by msbarnett » Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 10:10 PM UTC

sunchild wrote: post #99

rimantas wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can. I don't want to. There is zero benefits in doing that for me. SCSS on the other hand offers me that CSS does not.

You aren't required to use Haml. The point is that if your front-end designers can't adapt to it, they're not trying very hard.

I'd say the point is, there's no reason in having them spend any time at all adapting to it just to get right back to where we are, right now -- they churn out readable and workable markup.

We're not having any problems with HTML that HAML would solve.

Re: What’s Up With All These Changes in Rails?

#115

Post by erikpukinskis » Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 9:32 PM UTC

jdminhbg wrote: post #33

[deleted] wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

A fork to Rails to make HAML a default would consist of one line added to the Gemfile that says "gem 'haml'"

1) You can use ERB in Rails apps without including it in your Gemfile 2) Rails generators spit out ERB. The Haml gem doesn't include any generators, to my knowledge 3) The documentation is ERB-focused