Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
zedshaw.com
Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
#2The original DHH post and HN discussion here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=362979
Re: Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
#3Wow! Zed's story is consistent and potentially damning. I look forward to DHH's reply.
Re: Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
#4Anything you ever type or say on the web, will come to bite you in the ass eventually.
Re: Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
#5I did not read DHH's post and think he was suggesting Mongrel was leaking. I see that DHH screwed up and said Mongrel (which they were using in production, just not on Basecamp) when he should have said FCGI. But Zed has taken an entire DHH post, zoomed in on one irrelevant error, and attempted to twist the entire discussion around it.
Let's settle it now:
* Mongrel wasn't leaking.
* DHH clearly appears to have misspoken.
* But DHH also clearly said the leaks were in his application code.
The rest of this post is just more-of-the-same drama from Zed.
This time, instead of bizarro rants about Ruby security, or the play-by-play of the crank calls he gets, we get to hear about how Mongrel destroyed his career and how Rails will destroy the Passenger team. I can't see how this stuff has any relevance to me, as a professional developer, at all. If you can't make time to contribute to open source projects without screwing up your career, don't do it.
Re: Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
#6Wow! Zed's story is consistent and potentially damning. I look forward to DHH's reply.
Yeah. The guy usually comes off as an angry lunatic but his posts are still informative. DHH, on the other hand, seems to gloss over details and his posts tend to read more like marketing materials than anything else.
Although this little feud is getting old, I'm also looking forward to DHH's response. It will be interesting to see if his comment about Mongrel was simply an oversight or a cheap shot lie. I think it shows a total lack of class on the part of DHH to publicly speculate on a blog about Zed's mental well-being so I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was the latter.
Re: Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
#7"Mom, DHH called me a stupid-head!"
"Did not!"
"Did so!"
...
Etc., etc.
Honestly, neither of these guys need us feeding their egos. They've contributed some decent infrastructure for web hacking, but if they want to have a he-said/she-said argument, that's their business. I personally don't want to waste any more time on their little ego-fest.
Let's turn this into a thread about Passenger, instead, since both of them seem to be blessing it as the next great thing for Rails deployment. Personally, I've been nervous about using it in production, mainly because I don't yet trust that it isn't going to interact poorly with my rewrite rules and authN/Z setup. Apache configurations can feel a bit like voodoo even when modules aren't stomping all over each other, and the interaction of Passenger with mod_rewrite, in particular, seems like it could cause breakage.
That being said, once you get the thing packaged and installed (which wasn't as easy under Debian as I'd like), it does save a lot of resources compared to a Mongrel-based deployment. I've seen a drastic reduction in RAM usage, as well as a major decrease in the number of idle database connections lying around in inactive Mongrel backends.
Re: Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
#8Wow! Zed's story is consistent and potentially damning. I look forward to DHH's reply.
Be more specific about why Zed's post is "damning".
Re: Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
#9I did not read DHH's post and think he was suggesting Mongrel was leaking. I see that DHH screwed up and said Mongrel (which they were using in production, just not on Basecamp) when he should have said FCGI. But Zed has taken an entire DHH post, zoomed in on one irrelevant error, and attempted to twist the entire discussion around it. Let's settle it now: * Mongrel wasn't leaking. * DHH clearly appears to have missp…
True, it could have been an honest mistake. However, like I said in my comment above DHH starts off the post wondering aloud about Zed's state of mind and whether he needs help. Even if the Mongrel thing was a legitimate error the opening paragraph is an obvious cheap shot. Regardless of whether or not Zed just has an axe to grind here that kind of nonsense makes DHH look like a tool and a half if you ask me.
Re: Zed Shaw responds to DHH's Ruby Myths
#10Wow! Zed's story is consistent and potentially damning. I look forward to DHH's reply.
Be more specific about why Zed's post is "damning".
He accuses DHH of lying, and refers to an earlier (AFAIK uncontested) recording of the conversation to demonstrate his point.
Edit: I agree 100% with jm4's elaboration down below.