Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rails has Two Default Stacks

words.steveklabnik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: Rails has Two Default Stacks

#11

Post by netcan »

milesf wrote: post #10
smacktoward wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One message I'd like people to understand when they're starting out with Rails is that it really is confusing, and that being confused and maybe even feeling stupid is normal! But if you care about Rails uptake, aren't those bad things ? People don't like being confused. People don't like feeling stupid. If their initial impression of a system is "this is confusing" or "this makes me feel stupid," many if not most wi…

I agree with you, which is the reason why I think PHP is still way more popular than Rails. Cut-and-pasting scripts from Google searches is a terrible way to make code, but it works and it's a lot easier. I agree with DHH that Rails shouldn't be dumbed down (see his Railsconf 2012 talk https://37signals.com/svn/posts/3171-keynote-by-david-from-r... ). Cooking with Rails is like cooking with a real oven, not an easy b…

I think the fact that the starting point for php is an html page is a big deal. Whether or not its a good thing to replicate that (and things like that) is debatable but its not just about cutting and pasting from Google.

Re: Rails has Two Default Stacks

#12

Post by walls »

milesf wrote: post #3

Using Steve's definitions from the article, the tutorial I usually point people to is Michael Hartl's Rails Tutorial http://ruby.railstutorial.org/ which uses the "Prime" stack. I believe I read somewhere that Michael was going to come out with a "37 signals" stack version as well. One message I'd like people to understand when they're starting out with Rails is that it really is confusing, and that being confused an…

> One message I'd like people to understand when they're starting out with Rails is that it really is confusing, and that being confused and maybe even feeling stupid is normal!

Why is that normal?

I can say with some certainty that when I was deciding between Django and Rails, (and, subsequently Python/Ruby) there was a clear and obvious superior choice. (Hint: not Rails)

Re: Rails has Two Default Stacks

#13

Post by fendale »

steveklabnik wrote: post #9
qrush wrote: post #6

This is one of the strongest arguments I've seen for simply starting with the "default" stack. Move to other stuff when you feel the pain. If you're teaching or just starting off with Rails, don't use the "Prime" stack stuff until you really need it.

One of the things that got me thinking about this was the recent security issues. I was helping people on Skype upgrade their apps, because they were new, and they got into Gem Version Hell. Only pulling in fancy gems when you need it helps when you _really_ need to upgrade, and you're not stuck figuring out why twitter-bootstrap-rails, therubyracer, and libv8 (in this example, obviously, it could be any combination…

> twitter-bootstrap-rails, therubyracer, and libv8

Those three gems recently caused me a world of pain. I've been in and out of Rails development since the 1.x versions (more hobby projects than professional development), and once getting going was as simple as 'gem install rails'. Getting the asset pipeline to work changed that totally - I get the advantages of the asset pipeline, and once you get it working and all your gem dependencies sorted it is fine, but it took me a while to get there.

Re: Rails has Two Default Stacks

#16

Post by steveklabnik »

fendale wrote: post #13
steveklabnik wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things that got me thinking about this was the recent security issues. I was helping people on Skype upgrade their apps, because they were new, and they got into Gem Version Hell. Only pulling in fancy gems when you need it helps when you _really_ need to upgrade, and you're not stuck figuring out why twitter-bootstrap-rails, therubyracer, and libv8 (in this example, obviously, it could be any combination…

> twitter-bootstrap-rails, therubyracer, and libv8 Those three gems recently caused me a world of pain. I've been in and out of Rails development since the 1.x versions (more hobby projects than professional development), and once getting going was as simple as 'gem install rails'. Getting the asset pipeline to work changed that totally - I get the advantages of the asset pipeline, and once you get it working and all…

I don't even use therubyracer at all any more, personally. It's not generally neccesary; just {brew,apt-get} install nodejs and be done with it.

Re: Rails has Two Default Stacks

#17

Post by antidaily »

qrush wrote: post #7
smacktoward wrote: post #5

Someone told me earlier today that 'Starting Rails today is like starting to watch a soap opera in the 7th season.' Like most witty statements, there’s both truth and falsehood here. But, as a newcomer, how do you pick between the 37signals Stack and the Prime Stack? How many parts of Rails can you swap out before it stops being Rails? Maybe the simplest solution here would be to call the Prime Stack something differ…

> How many parts of Rails can you swap out before it stops being Rails? Rails is meant to be modular, it just doesn't stop being Rails.

Actually the answer was 7.

Re: Rails has Two Default Stacks

#18

Post by rhizome »

netcan wrote: post #11
milesf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, which is the reason why I think PHP is still way more popular than Rails. Cut-and-pasting scripts from Google searches is a terrible way to make code, but it works and it's a lot easier. I agree with DHH that Rails shouldn't be dumbed down (see his Railsconf 2012 talk https://37signals.com/svn/posts/3171-keynote-by-david-from-r... ). Cooking with Rails is like cooking with a real oven, not an easy b…

I think the fact that the starting point for php is an html page is a big deal. Whether or not its a good thing to replicate that (and things like that) is debatable but its not just about cutting and pasting from Google.

That's an important point, that Rails presumes database backing, and dynamic sites are inherently more complicated that static pages.

Re: Rails has Two Default Stacks

#19

Post by davidroetzel »

I could not agree more. The defaults are there for a reason. There are brilliant people out there building awesome software with those defaults.

When teaching rails, I always tell people to get familiar with the defaults first then try the alternatives and make an informed decision to switch (if at all necessary).

Re: Rails has Two Default Stacks

#20

Post by programminggeek »

What would help Rails the most is probably some example projects. They could be anything ranging from simple twitter clones to maybe full on e-commerce stores or something. Build them using the "golden path" and maybe someone else could build the same thing using the "prime" stack.

When I started the Obvious architecture, writing an example app made it concrete and makes it a lot easier to explain particular details or structures to people wanting to learn.

People love examples.

Post reply on HN