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

Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

jameschambers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

#31

Post by irahul »

MattRogish wrote: post #26
themgt wrote: post #22

I doubt most Rails developers spend much time thinking about .NET There's a large and growing number of useful, productive high-level languages, frameworks, databases, webservers, tooling, etc. The thing they all have in common is they're open source, they can be used on a variety of POSIX-compatible operating systems and distros, they're often used together, share underlying libraries, and help build off each other'…

Indeed. I've been a developer for about 13 years. The last 6 and change has been doing Rails and JS app development (I started out doing VC++ apps for Windows). I haven't thought about MS stack at all since about 2002. And I don't recall any presentations at RailsConf this year about .NET. No one in my circles even gives .NET a second thought. ASP MVC may be pretty rad, but I personally hate C# (Ruby is an amazingly…

> but I personally hate C# (Ruby is an amazingly better language)

I won't argue about Ruby being a better language(I like C# and Ruby and I am not inclined to pick a winner). But what version of C# have you used? If you had a brush with earlier versions of C#, I suggest you http://www.manning.com/skeet2/excerpt_contents.html read the first chapter.

Re: Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

#32

Post by rpeden »

btilly wrote: post #18

Disclaimer: I came to hate Microsoft back when it was first fashionable to do so. I've grown up, and still don't like them. Here is my pet peeve. MVC is a well-understood idea in web development that traces its inspiration back to Smalltalk in the 70s. There are many MVC frameworks in many languages, which differ in various details. All of which, to avoid confusion, called themselves things other than MVC. Examples i…

To be fair, they named it ASP.NET MVC, not just MVC. Considering that it is Microsoft's official MVC web framework on the ASP.NET web stack, I don't think it is an unreasonable name.

Re: Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

#33

Post by rpeden »

irahul wrote: post #31
MattRogish wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I've been a developer for about 13 years. The last 6 and change has been doing Rails and JS app development (I started out doing VC++ apps for Windows). I haven't thought about MS stack at all since about 2002. And I don't recall any presentations at RailsConf this year about .NET. No one in my circles even gives .NET a second thought. ASP MVC may be pretty rad, but I personally hate C# (Ruby is an amazingly…

> but I personally hate C# (Ruby is an amazingly better language) I won't argue about Ruby being a better language(I like C# and Ruby and I am not inclined to pick a winner). But what version of C# have you used? If you had a brush with earlier versions of C#, I suggest you http://www.manning.com/skeet2/excerpt_contents.html read the first chapter.

Indeed. With lambdas, closures, LINQ, and dynamic types when I want them, I find that C# feels sort of like a nice midway point between Java and Ruby.

Re: Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

#34

Post by irahul »

brugidou wrote: post #17

.NET tooling can't compete with any unix + ruby tooling. I use .NET everyday I work with NuGet & co and it stinks. It is miles away from being mature and robust (even with VS2012). I was a RoR dev before and loved it, now I just hate .NET at work because of it's OS (Windows) and tools (VS, NuGet, MSBuild...). We don't use MVC though.

> tools (VS, NuGet, MSBuild...).

I don't know about NuGet or MSBuild, but back then when I used VS for misc tasks, it used to run circles around Eclipse or Netbeans.

Re: Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

#35

Post by pothibo »

I just read all the myths' title and none of them are the reason why I'm using Ruby on rails.

You like asp.NET? Good on you. It probably has interesting concepts.

I have a feeling that a large percentage of the people choosing a framework base their choice on two main characteristics:

1. Language they wish to use/learn(C#, Java, Ruby, PHP, Python, etc)

2. Framework they know/heard of (ASP.net, RoR, Flask, Django, CakePHP, Symfony, etc.)

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Re: Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

#37

Post by pyrotechnick »

billsix wrote: post #36
Karunamon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On shaky legal ground, IIRC.

Not on shaky legal ground http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jul-06.html

"However, their position regarding the non-ECMA components like ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows Forms (which are the bone of contention) remains unclarified."

Re: Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

#38

Post by rpeden »

wes-exp wrote: post #20

For the record, the MVC Framework is completely open source. So is the entire Asp.Net stack. I'm a former C#/ASP.net programmer. This guy is delusional. Even when MS makes code available, that doesn't really mean it's useful in any practical sense. If you're targeting ASP.net, there is a 99.99% chance you're targeting Windows servers and only Windows servers. Does that sound like "open source"?

A quick look at the ASP.NET MVC source shows that it uses the Apache license, which is OSI approved:

http://opensource.org/licenses/category

So yes, I'd say that is sounds like open source, using a very permissive license. People can (and do) deploy ASP.NET MVC apps using OSes other that Windows. The vast majority choose to deploy on Windows servers, but that does not make the source any less open.

I don't mean to come across as a Microsoft apologist; I've worked with .NET, Ruby, and Java...and find them all acceptable ways to get things done quickly, once you know what you're doing. I just feel like if we all spent less time navel gazing about whose language/tech stack is the most awesome, and spent that time creating things instead, we'd all be a lot better off.

Re: Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

#39

Post by jhspaybar »

As someone who has developed in Java, .Net, PHP, Python, Node.js, and Ruby on Rails for web projects, I must say what sells me on RoR is the nature of the language and ActiveRecord. My god, ActiveRecord is AMAZING. Sometimes I just don't have the option to build something in Rails(for example building internal API's that have to be written in Java for a number of reasons), but given the choice I will choose a Ruby or RoR app every single time because of ActiveRecord and the way the language functions. I know there are lots of ActiveRecord style clones in other languages, but they just feel completely lacking when compared to the real ActiveRecord and all it's extensions.

Re: Things that Ruby on Rails people tell you

#40

Post by jiayo »

btilly wrote: post #18

Disclaimer: I came to hate Microsoft back when it was first fashionable to do so. I've grown up, and still don't like them. Here is my pet peeve. MVC is a well-understood idea in web development that traces its inspiration back to Smalltalk in the 70s. There are many MVC frameworks in many languages, which differ in various details. All of which, to avoid confusion, called themselves things other than MVC. Examples i…

Rails calls themselves MVC: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/getting_started.html#the-mvc-a...

I don't see the issue with calling it "ASP.NET MVC". The Visual Basic event-driven style of programming is fundamentally different from MVC. Calling it MVC provides context.

Would you have preferred they come up with a "cute" name that doesn't explain what it is?

Post reply on HN