Slashdot Mirror

See, the difference between my post and yours is that I'm actually right. You're hanging onto the antiquated turd called Perl, which acts as a sort of poor crazy-glue that holds projects together. Its days of significance are long over; the majority of work opportunities for Perl programmers involves maintaining systems that were written years before.

Being that you're obviously uneducated and malicious, I'll do my best to try and inform others and embarrass you at the same time:

1) Your claim is that Python is a primitive and feature-incomplete language, which is -true- of Ruby. Perl might be feature-complete if 6 ever comes out...keep holding the faith, eh? I'm guessing we'll be replacing the Linux kernel with HURD before that happens. Great OOP and functional programming features, libraries for everything from advanced math functions to graphics display (many of which are included in the standard library, as opposed to having to pull it down from CPAN).

2) easy_install doesn't come with Perl. That's certainly true, it's a python program. Perl has CPAN, which pretty much does the same thing. Not so much of a lie as pointing out the obviousness of your canned troll.

3) Yes, many of the points that I made about Python can also be made about Perl. But some of them can't, and that's where your argument falls apart again. Example: Turbogears (www.turbogears.org), a project similar to Rails that brings together a number of mature, web-development related projects together as one product. Cell phones that are capable of running Python are technically capable of executing a web-server on said cell phone if they wished.

Can the same be said for perl? Maybe. Search for "perl embedded cell phone" on Google. You'll get a few million results, but none of them will be a cell phone that runs perl as an embedded language. What do you get when you do a similar search for python as a first result? http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread= 148064 (which for those of you who don't care to read, is an author reviewing Python as used on a Nokia cellphone).

4) The statement that Python has difficulty with internationalization support is patently false, anyone who cares to point their browsers at www.python.net may verify that for themselves. This is the process involved in creating a unicode string in python:

unicode_string = u"Test."

What does the Ruby on Rails wiki have to say about internationalization support (which is fully offered in Turbogears by the way)?

http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Internatio nalization

First paragraph of the page: "Rails currently doesn't offer any explicit support for internalization."

Well, there you have it. You're obviously wrong, you obviously attempted a canned troll, and you obviously failed. Not that I expected a great deal from a pale and overweight man who lives a secret life from his three children trolling on Slashdot. If you can really call that a life. I wonder what they'd all think of you if they knew you were acting like an angry pre-teen online? Think they would still respect their father with that knowledge? Do they even respect you now?

You're a sad, sad excuse for a man, and I pity your children for having to acknowledge being related to you.

I would also recommend any of the newer web frameworks if you're planning on doing any sort of large-scale web development. If you like Python programming, Pylons is my current favourite. If you're a Ruby fan, Ruby-on-Rails is the one to use. PHP for web is not really the 'default' choice anymore, not among the web developers I work with anyway.

Ruby isn't any more a server-side language than 68k assembler is. You've probably confused it with Ruby on Rails which is a framework (and an excellent one, I might add) for making websites. Compared to plain PHP it makes web development easy and fun and even supports stuff like AJAX out of the box.

I must say that I find the screencasts on Ruby-on-rails (at http://www.rubyonrails.org/screencasts) probaby among the best presentations I've ever seen, from the perspective of communicating the idea.

Tell me: What would make it NOT just like VB.Net with curly braces?

Changing it to be a passthrough only works if ActiveSupport::Multibyte and the Ruby implementation are identical. dwerg has implied that they are, but since he's not part of the Rails Core Team, I have to take what he said with a grain of salt.

Encapsulation is good, yes. However, all classes should be encapsulated, so that when their internals change, their external interfaces do not.

OK, the problem presented here is what happens with ActiveSupport::Multibyte when Ruby 2.0 comes out. Since you can't force everyone to upgrade Ruby when it comes out, you have to do one of the following:
1. Support two versions of ActiveSupport::Multibyte
2. Write additional code to determine if multi-byte support is present in Ruby
3. Not use Ruby's multi-byte support in ActiveSupport::Multibyte at all

That's why it's a Bad Engineering(tm) decision. Even if the final decision is #2, ActiveSupport::Multibyte then becomes an Unnecessary Layer of Abstraction(tm)/Indirection(tm) of Ruby's multi-byte support on systems that support it, serving no purpose than to slow nice, compiled language calls with calls to Ruby code.

Pandora, you can open that box if you want, but I'm not touching it.

It depends on your task. If you are building small to medium-sized web-applications, I would recommend Seaside. For larger projects, there are things like GNUstepWeb and Struts. If you want something slow that doesn't scale well, but is 100% buzzword-compliant, then there's Ruby on Rails. If you want to re-use existing ASP.NET code then you could try Mono.

For many needs, Apache is not a good choice. I personally prefer Lighttpd, which is lighter, faster, and easier to configure. It has nice FastCGI integration, so you can use it with most frameworks.

As for databases, I still haven't found a good reason to use MySQL. If you need a real database, I'd go with PostgreSQL, which is more standards compliant than MySQL, and faster for complex queries. If you want something slightly more structured than a flat file, then try SQLite, which is simple, lightweight, and faster than MySQL for simple queries.

Well I moved from C# to Java a couple of years ago when a client wanted to be able to deploy to AIX. I found the transition dead easy. If you fancy taking a look at Java and want a good starter IDE you could do worse than look at Sun's Java Studio Creator which has a lot of the same look and feel as Visual Studio and is free and open source. If you want something that rocks and don't mind paying for it IDEA is easily the best IDE I've ever used for anything. Ruby on Rails is where all the hype is at the mo, of course, but I'm not much of a fan myself mainly because Ruby is so damn slow.

Also, if you'd like to access a database with compound primary keys, ActiveRecord won't support that, but Catalyst's ORM (DBIx::Class) supports it fine.

Rails is good for quick apps like a wiki or a blog, but for more complicated internal applications, Catalyst is where it's at.

There sure are better alternatives to PHP in the OSS sector! PHP IMHO is a nice toy but nothing I would use in a commercial project.

A soon to be totally OS sollution is of course JAVA with Apache and Servlets/JSP. Just take a look at Sun's website, they have a lot of information, examples and tutorials available. Also, Java is totally plattform independent and easily installed on Windows, if that remains your development system.

Another, more recent sollution would be Ruby on Rails, which has some realy niffty features.

And no, not a dumb question at all! One hint: If you got the time, just download the OSS you are considering ang play around with it, that's probably more usefull than my dumb answer. ;-)

I tried ruby on rails, although I didn't give it much of a chance. Here's why I didn't like it. If your building a small project, the model-view-controller thing can get really annoying, with the needing of 3 files for a single web page thing. Because it's not compiled, it seems like it's not a good idea for really large projects either. What is the big draw of ruby on rails? I really couldn't find any reason why I'd want to use it above PHP, and it doesn't really have the qualities needed to take on something like Java or .Net.

Read the documentation and tutorials of Rails. Read the opinions people leave on various forums. You'll notice something frequently recurring: they keep talking about "magic" and "magical features" (literally).

Rails became popular since the MVC architecture it enforces allows you to feel you're using a "more professional" paradigm for developing web applications, and lots of newcomers were attracted by the promise for "worry free development" that Rails promotes.

In fact, Rails has very little real world usage. Trying to adapt it to an existing database schema can make you cry, and their entire "convention over configuration" idea falls completely.

Lots of the "magic" it does, like Active Record and routing / route generation, add significant overhead to each page request, for the sake of abstracting and keeping things flexible that don't need to be flexible in the first place (especially with modern refactoring tools found in modern IDE-s).

RoR is and WILL remain a niche, since there are already too many attempts at people employing it for large sites with very poor results.

It's a popular fact that the official site of Rails itself runs on PHP, to which the excuse is that RoR is "for web apps and not for web sites"... which of course is a very poor excuse when the difference between both nowadays is only superficial.

What I like about Rails is that it resulted in a huge movement towards MVC in plenty of other languages and frameworks.

What I don't like is that those same languages don't try to apply MVC in a smart, efficient, light and performant way, but just rip Rails' features one by one, with routes and all.

People assume Rails and "web MVC" are the same thing, but they are not. A lot of the architecture in Rails is poorly conceived, and takes huge amount of resources to run abstractions of questionable use in real world application.

I suppose this will auto-correct itself as the "Rails fad" passes, but one thing's for certain: after Rails, web development will never be the same.

I think the best part is the logo with the shadow and reflection. It's like he can't decide between Web 1.0 bubble or Web 2.0 bubble! Use them both!

Actually, it's the output from one of the GIMP's logo scripts - they're instantly recognisable after a while. ;-)

The good news is that he doesn't have an index.php, unlike certain other sites...

Most people seem to like either Ruby [on Rails] or Python (Django seems to be a good MVC framework, but there are more).

Wrong.

Ruby on Rails was announced back in August, and I (et al) added details about the rest of the dev overview to Wikipedia 5 days ago. Personally, I thought the most interesting new part was Mandatory Access Control.

As much as a Vim-fan I am (I really am!), I really want to see something like TextMate for Linux! It's hard to describe what makes TextMate so great, take a look at the Screecasts on the homepage and on the Ruby on Rails homepage to get an idea...

I use Ubuntu almost full-time but I still have my G4 iBook which I use when I'm coding, just because of TextMate. Before TextMate I used to be a die-hard Vim-fan and I know my way around it pretty well.

but you asked, and I'll quote:
RoR shines in some applications and isn't so hot in others. why is this so hard to *get*? (emphasis mine)

it's so hard to get because all the Ruby fanbois, as well as the RoR site proclaim it as such.

http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Security

Service Temporarily Unavailable

Seems an appropriate response!

I wonder if this is related to their hacked wiki page?

Ruby on Rails Wiki

Anyone have information on this?

But that's not actually TFA, it's a separate security update linked from it. So you're being a bit harsh.

But that's not actually TFA, it's a separate security update linked from it. So you're being a bit harsh.

Including:
http://www.rubyonrails.org/index.php

I still get a kick out of that.

Ruby on Rails! Ruby on Rails! Ruby on Rails!

Woooo!!

I love this framework!

other_languages.each do |language|
    Chair.throw_at(language)
end

http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2006/8/7/ruby-on-rai ls-will-ship-with-os-x-10-5-leopard "The love for Ruby has definitely spread inside Apple and we've been thrilled to see the level of interest they've taken to get OS X to be a premiere development and deployment platform for Rails." So what happened to a rather fruitful discussion, we had with Steve jobs. http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172223&c id=14341270 Yeah, I know you may still argue like James Golsings that Ruby is alright for generating web pages(mind you *generating*, doesn't it shows the contempt/disregard on the part of James Goslings for Web Developers?).But still shipping a framework is too much.Even none of the flavours of GNU/Linux has done it.But i guess, Apple will eat its own humble pie, when it sees a business sense. Ruby on Rails + Textmate and the push by Rails core team, has created new OS X users.So, lets cash on it.There is nothing called "love for Ruby", as put up by, this guy on the Rails blog.If there is a love, why don't they help in writting Ruby bindings for Cocoa?? I am 101% sure, if tomorrow, there is a "Rails" for GUI development. http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Aug-02.html, Apple will again eat its own humble pie(or cow dung, depending upong your GeoIP), and will ship it with OS X. But i am not interested, I am from India and will cost me a arm and a leg to lay hand on this half baked open sorsed(actually not open at all, if you call Mac open, then Windows is open too!!, but the way Mac zealots project Apple as less evil is funny.I remember, Galadariel talking to Frodo, "if you give me the ring frodo, then you will have a queen in place of dark lord Sauron.And she will be fair, white and terrible to behold." Ahh..there is go again, may not be the exact words, but that is beside the point. I just have this point that, Apple doesn't seem evil as long as M$ is there, but there it gains the ruling ring(the monopoly), it will be one for sure.) product.I am happy with Ubuntu. Thank you very much for your open kernel.(I am bothered to read your license also)

Wait...

Did you think this was a *real* product? Yes? There's obviously a reason for that, too -- ignorance.

This site is a spoof, making light-hearted fun of Ruby on Rails, Web 2.0, et cetera. The part of the joke is that you shouldn't need any specific database in a real agile environment. Then again, jokes that are over-explained wind up being less funny.

I'm more of a Postgres guy, anyway, and I think PHP is the spawn of the devil. If you're interested in understanding, do a quick comparison of the following sites, and come back with a worldview that goes beyond the purview of your toolset.

• Ruby on Rails
• SQL on Rails

When the article's second sentence indicates the author's desire for help with agile development, my post is considered FUNNY .

...in 37 signals (the guys who made Ruby on Rails), I wouldn't be suprised to see some more RoR happening there as some commenters here have suggested. Good times...

Here is an observation: With all the publicity Ruby on Rails and other frameworks like Zend Framework, Turbogears and the like are receiving these days--why are we not seeing an innumerable number of security trolls like Chris Shiflett on the *framework side of web development? My thoughts are that PHP users are told "you can too" when in many cases, with forums other resources like the ten gazillion books, they *can*, to an extent (but either with really bad help or books assuming the reader is not working on a *real* project).

Conversely, Rails, Turbogears and Symphony are, too, saying "you can too." Yet, where are the security trolls? It seems though that the *actual* users of the *frameworks, the ones using them for real-life projects are those who have struggled with PHP and (perl, python, etc...) CGI programming for so long and decided "fuck it." Things like database abstraction (and therefore quoting, etc), single-entry-point, and template-safety are, in the most part, taken care of for you.

P.S. XSS is not a PHP problem!

Don't forget my favorite: http://www.rubyonrails.org/index.php

Omigosh. That's hilarious. Must be that Ruby On Rails is just too powerful to run a typical web site.

Don't forget my favorite: http://www.rubyonrails.org/index.php

I can't believe no-one has mentioned Textmate. It's an excellent text editor for MacOS X and wonderful for doing any sort of programming work.

http://macromates.com/

If you want to see how easy it makes things, it's used in the Ruby on Rails screencasts.

http://www.rubyonrails.org/screencasts

Ah, I was talking about your reference to a query like this: INSERT INTO foo VALUES(NOW());

In that case, you CAN do it... http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/StoredProc edures

BUT! That's not the Rails way. See this entry on DHH's blog.

You mean it's been a whole seven months since the release of Rails 1.0 and Bank of America hasn't redone their entire website in it yet? My god, it's all been a sham! How could we have been so blind!

LOL, indeed. Nobody has a frickin' clue how Rails 2.x, let alone Rails 3.x, is (or is not) going to change anything, whether we're talking about scalability or speed or new ORM approaches. Hell, we don't even know anything about the relative performance of Ruby 2.0's VM, presuming it chugs out of the gate in the next couple of years.

All the Web 2.0 buzzwords being thrown about notwithstanding, d'ya think maybe we could, oh, wait a few goddamn years before writing Rails off as a failure?

Uhhh...

Support for saving database records using database function. In other words, I want Rails to automatically perform a query that looks like this...

Create a column called "created_at" and Rails does it automatically according to which db adapter you're using. No function call (on your end) needed.

- Apache integration is still too immature. I don't know about Apache 1, but Apache 2 integration using FastCGI doesn't work *at all*. The documentation on the website about Apache integration is very messy: different pages suggest different things. After much research I found out that

I think the Agile Web Development with Rails book addresses this and I know that my book does, but either way that configuration is quickly becoming a thing of the past. FastCGI is slow, cumbersome, and hard to configure compared to using mod_proxy and pointing at a bunch of Mongrel (a Ruby/C based web server) instances. If you must use this setup, then look here: http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/FastCGI

If you really want the best setup, look here and here.

Documentation is still too immature. While the API references are pretty good, the Wiki is very messy (see Apache integration).
Agreed and work is being done on that, but don't discount Rails because of the bad wiki. Hit up Planet RubyOnRails, Planet Ruby, and RubyCorner: Ruby blogs are where the info is. If you like what you see, shell out the money for one of the books. I don't know if Ruby for Rails is a great place to start, but however you think you'll learn best, go with it: learning the language first (Ruby for Rails), learn the language from the framework (Agile Web Development with Rails), or a quick (50~ page)run through and then Rails (Mr. Neighborly's Relevant Ramblings, Thoughtful Theories, and Pointed Pontifications on Ruby and Rails -- my book).

-Jeremy

Quit the hype allready. There are at least 3 oss web packages out there that are better in more than just a few aspects:
django ( http://www.djangoproject.com/ )
Symfony ( http://www.symfony-project.com/ )
Zope ( http://www.zope.org/ )
Zope is by far the oldest and most sophisticated. Django is Rails done right and in Python and Symfony is a PHP metaframework that includes Propel and some other third party goodies with tons of very neat PHP 5 foundation work. Each one of these kick Rails up and down the street when it comes to ease of use, ease of deployment, available documentation and performance (Zope may be a little slower, but they have a full-blownobject relational DB built in that makes SQL look like peek and poking a c64 back in 1985).
And since the Ruby on Rails people use PHP to power their Rails website (oh, the irony; http://rubyonrails.org/index.php ) I'd trust in even PHP being able to perform more than good in the newest lineup of Frameworks.

So quit the rails-only hype allready, it's anoying.

You want to know the latest trends for Java-based web development? Fewer and fewer people are going to be doing Java-based web development in the future.

Fuck trends. They're wrong. Every day the industry continues to stay with its current ridiculous technologies when vastly superior ones were invented decades ago infuriates me further. If it doesn't infuriate you, you're not paying close enough attention.

My advice: read Lambda the Ultimate and Steve Yegge's blog. Endeavor to learn what the lambda calculus and referential transparency are. If you are sincerely interested in bettering yourself as a programmer and don't go find out who Alonzo Church was then so help me God I will kick you in the balls. Learn about SML and type inference. Learn about Haskell and monads. Learn about process calculi and Erlang. Learn about Lisp and code generation and domain-specific languages. Learn about Scheme and lexical closures and continuations. Learn about Smalltalk and what OO was really supposed to be. Learn about type theory and formalism and the Curry-Howard correspondence. Learn about Forth and Joy and how you can have a powerful, expressive language without even so much as a grammar. Learn about Intercal and Befunge and just how badly your choice of programming language can torture you. Learn about UML and Ruby on Rails and Seaside and agile programming and Java generics and Python generators. Learn about aspect-oriented programming, context-oriented programming and concept programming. Learn about multi-paradigm languages like OCaml or Oz. Learn about weird Lisp dialects with syntax like Rebol or Dylan.

Realize that library design is language design. Realize that asynchronous programming with callbacks and explicit state in a world where lightweight coroutines were around in the days of fucking Simula in the 60s for Christ's sake is cruel and unusual torture. (Sorry, pet programming construct.) Realize that the programming language research community, while considering systems programming a solved problem and generally not interested in talking about human factors, is doing some genuinely promising work. Did you know that there are conc

play around with MySQL and PHP

This is close, and the particular technologies don't matter a ton. But don't play around. Set out to make something simple that people will use. Maybe it's a to-do list just for you. Maybe it's a scheduling tool so your and your Quake buddies know who's up for a game when. Just make something ultra-minimal that works and gets use.

The essence of the profession is making things for people to use. Start with that focus and never let it go. The technologies are seven kinds of cool, but are secondary, not ends in themselves. If you want to do great work, you'll also need to understand people, how they use things, and how to build to last. As long as you focus on shipping software, even if only to yourself and a few pals, you'll have a million opportunities to dig in deep to interesting topics.

Were I setting up a novice today, I'd get them going with Ruby On Rails. It's easy to get started, will keep you from certain bad habits, and has many interesting avenues for exploration. But the important thing is to ship early and often, trying new tools regularly.

In the community the deployment pipeline often gets neglected. I know this problem myself. You keep dev'ing at the project and tend ignore end-user ready deployment. And they have to fuss about with old versions. Luckyly we're seeing a break in this trend with OSS projects getting into competetive marketing and end-user management.

Rails supports multiple databases.

I followed the instructions here http://www.rubyonrails.org/down on Windows XP and it worked straight away.

Um, aparently they do:

http://www.rubyonrails.org/INDEX

----
Multiple Choices
The document name you requested (/INDEX) could not be found on this server. However, we found documents with names similar to the one you requested.

Available documents:

        * /index.php (common basename)
----

Though perhaps they're just slapping on PHP extensions, but I don't know why they would.

Perhaps Web 2.0 is tired?

No, PHP is tired. It's now all about Ruby, Python, LISP, and the more obscure but no less interesting Lua, Scala, Qi, OCaml, among others, and various derivatives and frameworks.

Hmm... well, the main advantage of LAMP is that the various pieces Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP work really really well with each other. On the development tools side, there isn't anything free that matches Visual Studio in sheer development speed (I use vim myself), but I've heard good things about PHP Eclipse. On the database side, PHPMyAdmin beats everything else I've ever used, open source and commercial. If you're really interested in rapid development and programming ease, I'd suggest looking into Ruby on Rails.

However, the real wealth of tools come in the form of the applications that are built on top of the LAMP stack, including blogging tools and Content Management Systems which make creating and maintaining a website infinitely easier.

~$ dpkg -l ruby1.8
ruby1.8 1.8.2-9ubuntu1 Interpreter of object-oriented scripting lan

~$ ruby --version
ruby 1.8.3 (2005-06-23) [i486-linux]

I've read several places that this is a CVS version.

"When I pulled the Ruby package out of Breezy and built it, it was a 1.8.3 CVS
build. This is yet another pre-release package. I don't think the updated Ruby
package has made it to backports yet. I've been checking every couple of hours
now. If and when the package does make it into backports I hope and pray that
it's a 1.8.2 stable build and not something that was thrown together out of CVS
like what I've already seen."
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/ruby1 .8/+bug/18876

"...doesn't work if you're running Ubuntu 5.10 (and I'm guessing Debian sarge) because they have a heavily patched 1.8.2 version of ruby (from CVS) that reports itself as 'ruby 1.8.3 (2005-06-23) [i486-linux]'..."
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/2263

Isn't that what Ruby on Rails is for?

http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/CRUD

trichard

Well, you're almost done. If you are upgradding from 1.0, you'll want to read this -

http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Count+Limi t+Associations+Plugin

Who's using Rails? Check out the Rails wiki site for hundreds of example sites

And if you want a free cPanel/SSH account to download the new Rails version in to see what the craziness is all about - check out www.HostingRails.com

I think its safe to say that Ruby on Rails is the fastest growing Web 2.0-friendly framework - and for good reason. I mean c'mon - the average developer can pick up a few Rails tutorials and have a working demo app (w/ CRUD scaffold action and such) on their local box in a few minutes. Throw in some easily-incorporated Prototype and Scriptaculous effects, and this developer is the new cool kid on the block.

Crazy

~JoeRails

They certainly deserve a lot of praise for delivering 1.1 with so many improvements. Surprisingly, rails 1.1 seems to take less RAM (dispatch.fcgi) than rails 1.0!

One thing I really wish RoR team would do now is focus on bugfixes for 1-2 weeks and deliver a more robust rails 1.1.1.

I've been tracking the progress of rails 1.1 and it was released despite having 3 blockers (bugs marked 'fd' by the rails core team).

Bugs I'd like to see fixed in Rails 1.1.1 (around 12 bugs total in these 2 reports):

http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/14
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/19

I think that is a reasonable compromise given that there are 196 bugs currently in the "Potential 1.1 Blockers" report--this is simply all tickets with milestone = 1.1 which can be set by the general public:

http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/10

Many of the above bugs have patches available so 2 weeks of bugfix-only activities can be enough to produce a really polished rails 1.1.1 that will be very attractive for ecommerce sites.

Anyways, I'm grateful for rails 1.1 but would be much more enthusiastic about rails 1.1.1 with more bugfixes.

They certainly deserve a lot of praise for delivering 1.1 with so many improvements. Surprisingly, rails 1.1 seems to take less RAM (dispatch.fcgi) than rails 1.0!

One thing I really wish RoR team would do now is focus on bugfixes for 1-2 weeks and deliver a more robust rails 1.1.1.

I've been tracking the progress of rails 1.1 and it was released despite having 3 blockers (bugs marked 'fd' by the rails core team).

Bugs I'd like to see fixed in Rails 1.1.1 (around 12 bugs total in these 2 reports):

http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/14
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/19

I think that is a reasonable compromise given that there are 196 bugs currently in the "Potential 1.1 Blockers" report--this is simply all tickets with milestone = 1.1 which can be set by the general public:

http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/10

Many of the above bugs have patches available so 2 weeks of bugfix-only activities can be enough to produce a really polished rails 1.1.1 that will be very attractive for ecommerce sites.

Anyways, I'm grateful for rails 1.1 but would be much more enthusiastic about rails 1.1.1 with more bugfixes.

They certainly deserve a lot of praise for delivering 1.1 with so many improvements. Surprisingly, rails 1.1 seems to take less RAM (dispatch.fcgi) than rails 1.0!

One thing I really wish RoR team would do now is focus on bugfixes for 1-2 weeks and deliver a more robust rails 1.1.1.

I've been tracking the progress of rails 1.1 and it was released despite having 3 blockers (bugs marked 'fd' by the rails core team).

Bugs I'd like to see fixed in Rails 1.1.1 (around 12 bugs total in these 2 reports):

http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/14
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/19

I think that is a reasonable compromise given that there are 196 bugs currently in the "Potential 1.1 Blockers" report--this is simply all tickets with milestone = 1.1 which can be set by the general public:

http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/10

Many of the above bugs have patches available so 2 weeks of bugfix-only activities can be enough to produce a really polished rails 1.1.1 that will be very attractive for ecommerce sites.

Anyways, I'm grateful for rails 1.1 but would be much more enthusiastic about rails 1.1.1 with more bugfixes.

You can also use Darwinports to install ruby and ruby-gems and whatever DB you want. Caveats: you have to install swig if you're using sqlite, you have to change a shebang or two to avoid conflicts with the installation of ruby that ships with OS X.