Slashdot Mirror
Is Ruby on Rails Maintainable?
kale77in asks: "I've become a big fan of Ruby over the past few months, but I'm not at all sure about Ruby On Rails. Automatic code generation sets of alarm bells in my mind; so that, to RoR's promise of 'Web Development that Doesn't Hurt', I automatically add '...until you have to maintain it'. On the other hand, some writers and coders I respect (like the Pragmatic Programming mob) seem to be fans. I've mainly written generators in Python, to produce PHP/SQL/Java from SQL files, but I've always gone back to well-constructed objects, where extension and overloading offers more precise and maintainable customization than auto-generation allows. So is Rails just a nice RAD tool for disposable, cookie-cutter apps (which have a place, of course)? Is high-level generation just a bad OO substitute? And what has your experience of Rails' maintainability been?"
> Automatic code generation sets of alarm bells in my mind
Do you have a beef with compilers and assemblers?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's quite obvious that the concept of the automatic code generation done in Ruby On Rails was either not completely grasped or completely missed by the author. The whole purpose of the code being generated was to give you a basic structure to take and change until it was what you needed it to be. This is precisely why it is called 'scaffolding', because it gives you the framework to get started with.
As far as the Ruby On Rails framework itself is concerned, it is extremely capable and flexible for handling a great deal of web application projects. Of course there will be specific functionality that Ruby On Rails will not handle very well — there never are perfect solutions.
I wouldn't consider the reviewers objections completely devoid of import, just misguided. You must always be careful about anything you didn't do yourself, but you must exert the same care and attention to the stuff that you do create yourself! Often we put far too much confidence in our own coding skills.
So, in the end, the concept of Ruby On Rails is simply to alleviate the mundane, rote programming that goes into the basics, particularly the structure and minimalistic database interaction, and make it surprisingly simple.
M.T.
"Support Bacteria - Its the only culture some people have" - Circa 1985
Bruce
* Duck typing: If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's a duck! Object types don't matter to the users of Ruby objects. What matters is that the object responds to a particular collection of methods. This is something like virtual functions, but does not require inheritance from any class or virtual class although inheritance from a Ruby module (sort of an abstract base class) is often the best way to implement those methods. So, a Ruby object might export a collection of methods called Enumerable and would respond positively to an is_enumerable? method to identify that those services are available.
Bruce Perens.
Rails is _not_ a code generation framework. Note the period on that sentence.
Rails may provide the some simple scaffold generation, but that's only there if you _want_ to use it, and it happens to fit the way you'd like a particular part of your app to work. The code produced is concise, easy-to-follow, and thus easy-to-maintain.
For my own applications, I barely ever use scaffolding. It works well for simple admin screens where I just want 'something' that works for now, then will spend some effort on designing it a little better, later.
Rails is as maintainable as you make it. If you're a poor programmer, you're likely to write unmaintainable code, no matter what language or framework you have to help you. Rails helps point you in the right direction, but in the end, it's up to the _developer_ how maintainable his/her code is.
Rails has created quite a buzz in the Web 2.0 community, which means a lot of people jump straight into Rails without any prior knowledge of Ruby; and then when they find they can't get very far they blame that on Rails.
It's like hacking the Linux Kernel without ever having programmed in C. You're bound to think it sucks because you won't have a clue what's going on.
Ruby on Rails script/generate generates very little code. If you choose "File, New class" in Eclipse, you get the about the same amount of code, as you would get if you used rails generation features. The only difference is that ruby on rails also generates a test class for the model.
Scaffolding generates a bit more code, but it is never intended to be actually used. It is ment to be slowly replaced, piece by piece, by your own code. So I don't think the disadvantages of code generation really applies here.
So yes, in my experience a ruby on rails project is maintainable.
My limited use of RoR has been favorable - no issues, as of yet, regarding maintainability or spheghetti-O code
It has worked as promised and I have been pleasantly surprised by its functionality
btw, my main use was creating a new database for an intranet application
Devs are always looking for ways to reduce the amount of time it takes to code something. Admins are always looking for ways to automate their jobs. RoR is nice for devs but makes the admin tasks pretty hard - unless the admin knows his way around the product about as well as the dev does.
Now add the additional idea of a custom-designed project that the dev put together - and didn't document (because devs never document, right?). Chaos ensues.
I've been doing almost pure OO programming for the past 8 years (using mostly C++ and Java), but recently took up Python (for python-twisted and pyWxWindows) and Ruby on Rails (for server-side development), and I can tell you that it is much simpler, easier to debug, and quicker to get done than taking the time to create massive class hierarchies whose inheritance structures and interfaces only exist to satisfy type-safety requirements.
Don't get me wrong. I like writing class hierarchies as much as the next guy. I've spent years doing it. But when I compare what I can get done in 30 minutes in, say, Python, to what I can't get done in 3 hours in C++, the advantages start to become very clear.
Try Ruby (the language) here. Integral to understanding much of Rails.
I released my first production Rails app last month. I like it a lot. I have a background in ASP/SQL Server/PHP. Not having to use Microsoft Windows itself is a huge win. But I like the design of the language and the framework and the built-in separation and a thousand little other things. Check out #rubyonrails on irc.freenode.net, great community there too.
The "Automatic Code Generation" is a slight misnomer. It would be better to think of it as "Semi Automatic Code Generation". (Mental image...hehe).
It's just a part of the system that can *if you so desire* generate basic classes and parts of an MVC system by inspecting your database. It's basic and is designed to give you something to work with while you build the actual application you want.
The real strength of the Rails framework is the various support libraries and the way it gently encourages you to follow specific coding conventions (Hungarian notation fans, run for the hills!). If anything, this not only speeds development but makes maintenance a breeze - Ruby is a very readable language when not abused.
Hmm...that does all sound a bit fan-boyish, doesn't it? Well, I'm a PHP convert to Ruby and I have to say I wish I'd decided to take a look sooner.
Short answer - Rails systems are probably more maintainable than your average ASP/PHP system.
"...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
Automatic code generation sets of alarm bells in my mind;
You're reading too much into it. Just like when you're building a house; you put the Scaffolding up to give you something to work from. When you're done building your project, the Scaffolding is gone.
To stay FAR FAR AWAY from Ruby on Rails here. In fact, they sent us java developers to the Java conference and we were forbidden to go into any of those seminars. Why? Probably because they don't want us picking up any bad habits.
I think a lot of the "it's not maintainable or scalable" assessments of Rails come from people who have seen its code generation and "scaffolding" features and think that those are the main advantage of Rails. It's true that one can only do so much with the "scaffolding" which is simple and generic. However, the real power of Rails comes not from the scaffoldings but from the framework Rails provides in which to write custom code. I've written two Rails applications and maintained several others. None of them used the scaffolding provided by Rails - they had all hand-written code inside the bare-bones Rails-generated structure. Those applications have proved to be easily maintainable. It's a shame that most of the introductory tutorials/examples/videos for Rails focus on the scaffolding features, because that leads people without much Rails experience to believe that the scaffolding is all there is to Rails and form a (usually poor) opinion based on that.
chown -R us ~you/base
Rails provides more then the scaffolding capabilities and simple framework of designing a blog as seen in the video. It provides the structure for fast and organized ruby application development by setting up for the user a foundation of modelling, views and controllers that are easy to use and distinguish. It is not the magic wand to a great web application. The magic wand comes with Ruby programming experience and learning to tie it into Rails application development. You could even go as far as stepping beyond the "narrow view" of what rails is doing and see the bigger picture, understanding that Ruby is supporting all of this webmagic and rails is providing the "rails" as it claims to. One challenge many of the "why is this better than Php?" questioners have difficulty seeing past is the far smaller community rails has, the less clear translation between what php can do and what rails is capable of, and the predefined examples of rails applications in action. Many people leap to using PHP becuase it provides pre-existing code snippets that make the same thing true of many php users, "simple cookie cutter codejobs." Rails offers you a chance at not only using a great framework, but also a great programming language that its built on to make more pragmatic and simpler design tactics to getting your website online and active. Another alternative to rails is Iowa which offers a lighter approach to maintenence, though remains less documented. It can be found here: http://enigo.com/projects/iowa Whatever you choose to do, look deeper into the situation then the surface of what appears to be "cookie cutter" programming and realize that a powerful tool lies beneath all of this: Ruby.
I find it unfortunate that most of the 'newbie' tutorials jump right in to how to generate scaffold code. This code is a bit unmanageable and hard to modify, but I think it has a certain 'WOW' factor associated with it. Once the novelty wears off and you need to develop real applications, you will rarely use the generated scaffold code, and the code you write within the framework will certainly be manageable.
Where I think Rails comes out on top is the fact that it includes a full blown ORM and an MVC implementation under the same, configuration-less framework. No more XML. No more duplicate java beans...More of this on my blog if interested.
I've been using Rails for several months, and I think it's "automatic code generation" is no big deal, and nothing to worry about. If you're worried about maintainability, it the wrong place to focus.
The only time code gets generated for you automatically is at the very beginning of a project to create "scaffolding". That scaffolding is great, because it lets you get something up and running very quickly, but in my experience, it NEVER survives in the body of the project for long--you always want to do something differently, or more elaborately, than what the scaffolding provides.
So, I think of Rails' scaffolding as "stub" code that happens to include some (very) basic functionality. Like code stubs, they just provide placeholders for you to use to flesh out your own code.
Once the project is underway, it's unlikely you will generate any more code automatically--you don't need to.
It's worth noting that what I've described here is the behavior and usage of code generators that are included as part of Rails. There *are* some cases where people have written code generators that attempt to automatically generate entire subsystems for you in a Rails app--and those generators are the subject of interminable support questions in online forums, and a lot of discussion within the Rails community as to their wisdom. . . which is why no generators like that are included as part of the Rails distribution.
Beyond code generation, I can't say anything definitive about Rails maintainability because it's so new, but my feeling from having worked with my own code, and from having studied the code of others, is that Rails apps should be wonderfully maintainable. After all, the "opinionated" style of Rails leads all Rails apps to be laid out the same way, with the same directory structure, the same application architecture, coding standards, naming standards, etc.
From my experience so far, all these things are likely to make Rails a winner from a maintainability standpoint, as well as in terms of productivity and fun!
Unless they're making a promotional movie on writing a slashdot replacement in 5 minutes
Judging by how this article was written you haven't used rails at all, or maybe used it for something extremely trivial. The "automatic code generation" (scaffolding) is only there to help you get started on a project. You can completely bypass it if you want.
I'd be willing to bet that if you used rails for an hour or two, you wouldn't have written this article. In fact, the entire article depends on your assumption that the code *has* to be generated automatically.
So what are you waiting for? Try it and see!
I honestly couldn't think of a better way to do something like that than with Rails.
In the meantime, if you want rails-like development but with Python check out TurboGears.
It's been raising quite a storm lately, and for a good reason!
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
"It requires you to do a lot of things manually that could easily be done automatically, and you still write bits of SQL in your code."
Which type of things can be done automatically, you see? Also, what is so bad about writing SQL queries *for complex queries*? I know in my case, I will not be hopping from database system to database system to worry about SQL compatibility issues.
"Also, more importantly, it doesn't provide an application layer that entirely abstracts the functionality from the interface. This is bad for any number of reasons."
You mean its use of ERb?
"Finally, it's pretty much tied to MySQL, so if you use PgSQL or Oracle (and you should), then you're in for a big headache."
I have no problem using it with PostgreSQL.
Java interfaces allow you to declare that something is a Duck, so it must be a duck. However, with Java, I can ensure that anything I think I want to call a duck does indeed fulfill the contract of being a duck. What in Ruby forces you to properly export the collection of methods in Enumerable when you defined is_enumerable to return true? Nothing?
In Ruby, you can write code that assumes a parameter has a method called foo. In the future if I make a new object, I can add a foo method to it and pass it into that code. In Java, all it takes is the oh-so-hard task of creating an interface called, say, CanFoo, that declares a foo method, and typing my parameter to that. For anything I want to pass into that code, I just implement method foo, which I have to do anyway, and add CanFoo to my list of implemented interfaces. Classes don't have to inherit from any particular class, and they can implement as many interfaces as they want. So that was no more work. However, now the compiler helps me to ensure that I properly fulfill the contract of CanFoo. Plus if I want to do anything useful like find things that think they CanFoo, or rename foo to something else, the compiler will know where all of these references are and help me.
I'm not anti-Ruby, but I just plain don't understand arguments like this for the language.
Also, "say it only once" may be somewhat forced by the framework, which is a good principle of a framework, but that transcends languages, so I don't buy that, either.
I'm not arguing that Rails isn't maintainable, just that your reasoning for why it is aren't exclusive to Rails or Ruby.
I've been using Rails for about 7 months, and have done two major projects in it. I completely disagree with your assessment. For starters, it's not at all tied to MySQL. PgSQL support is also very good. My understanding is that Oracle support is not so great at the moment. But I expect that will change. My real point here is that Rails is not inherently tied to any specific database; it's just a matter of what ActiveRecord adaptors happen to be out there right now.
As far as requiring the user to write SQL code, yes, you do have to write fragments of SQL code, sometimes. But SQL is a useful way to describe queries -- that's the whole point. Would using some other query language, that got translated to SQL, be any better? I don't see why it would.
Your comment about Rails not abstracting functionality from interface seems off base as well. Rails adopts a standard MVC architecture, which is pretty much the standard method for abstracting functionality from interface. If you're not getting such abstraction in your Rails apps, you probably just need to think about exactly what should go in the models, what should go in the controllers, and what should go in the views, and rearrange things a bit. Like any other MVC environment, Rails can't prevent you from e.g. putting view-specific code in your model. All it can do is provide a structure that allows you to properly separate these things if you take the time to think about your design properly.
Finally, on the charge that Rails only provides proof-of-concept features, I think you've misunderstood one of the major design principles of Rails. Rails is intended to provide a framework to build on, not a bunch of components you can plug together to get a web app without writing any code. As such, many of its components focus on the core functionality that's really useful, to the exclusion of other stuff. That other stuff might sometimes be nice to have, but it frequently locks you into doing things the way the framework does them, instead of the way that's most appropriate to your app. The Rails approach is a very refreshing change, for me anyway, and I hope the project will continue to maintain this focus.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
You've obviously never worked with ASP.NET.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
RoR (Ruby on Rails) is simply a very nice API for doing web apps with Ruby. It will auto-generate some code via what Rails calls Scaffolding. This is meant to get something working extremely quickly and it allows you to enter some data into a table with minimal fuss. The code it generates is quick and dirty and you are supposed to re-write each method as you move forward. That said, it's not a real code generator in the traditional sense. The Wow factor of the videos on rubyonrails.com show off the Scaffolding but that is only a very small part of Rails development.
Ruby itself is very maintainable because the syntax is so very clean. However, it's up to you to document your code with meaningful comments, check it into CVS or Subversion, and implement your own Unit Tests, and include RDOC tags in your comments, etc. All code regardless of language is maintainable if you eliminate the code monkey bad habits. i.e. if you've been coding in PHP and all your code became unmaintable then it's your own fault and not that of PHP. Ruby in my opinion is better organized then PHP and encourages good code standards but ultimately, it's up to the programmer. If you are a neat freak and are very detail oriented and you tend to go back and cleanup, test your code before you check it into your version control system then your code will always be maintainable.
I like the way the RoR ActiveRecord mapping system; maps my classes to database tables and objects to my records. You can programatically create records in the table by creating additional objects. The scaffolding will read an existing database table and generate working classes so you can utilize CRUD functionality. You don't have to use scaffolding but it comes in handy for me even when I throw it out one method at a time and re-write it.
Yes, if poorly written and
Yes, when applications get very, very complex--which is a given. And they will get very complex, just wait 2 yrs.
Consider the great development tools of RoR such that you end up with a Microsoft environment/paradigm--great for RAD, not so great for critical systems that need to be up 24/7, 100%.
I'd still go with XML Schema-based code generation, much more stable as it forces you to thing about state and behavior before you write your first GUI title bar. And since the web is XML-centric, makes sense..
As others have noted, what Rails generates for you are stubs. Even if the stubs are full-featured enough to let you add, edit, view, and delete objects, they're still stubs. It's just that RoR is succinct enough that generating 150 lines of code (including action views and layouts) is all that's necessary to provide all of that functionality in a very basic way.
l -from-scaffolding
But, two links for your consumption.
My article on the topic of what I call Scaffold Withdrawal
http://www.slash7.com/articles/2005/12/07/the-fal
Structure generation vs code generation (from the Rails' creator's blog)
http://www.loudthinking.com/arc/2005_10.html
It's true that "Ask Slashdot" is vehicle for enlightenment, but I didn't think it was a vehicle for the basest laziness. I don't understand why someone would go Ask Slashdot instead of looking at a couple F/OSS Rails app packages and deciding for himself whether or not they look "maintainable."
If the submitter did, he'd find that it's clear that maintaining Rails apps is no problem. You don't have to know much about a given app to even do serious "maintenance" on it. As long as the programmer hasn't tried really hard to break all the benefits Rails brings to the table (regular file structure, MVC separation, clean models, helper classes, etc), then you'll already know a lot about how the app is structured before you even unzip it.
---- My Design, Code, Ruby on Rails blog: http://www.slash7.com/
The problem that he's referring to in ruby is coincidental naming.
I implement a function with a name "join" without knowing what the rest of the world uses it for. (e.g. my "join" joins a chatroom, but the standard use of "join" is to concatenate all of the objects in an array together into a string.) Suddenly my object looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but doesn't act like a duck. Ruby thinks it can be used in the same context that everything else uses it in, but semantically it can't be used there.
Inheritance prevents conicidental naming problems by making the default assumption that two similarly named functions *don't* do the same thing, and can't be used in the same place. You override this assumption by indicating that the class inherits from a certain class (C++) or implements a certain interface (Java).
Ruby is not statically typed, which means that if you have a very large program and you change an API in that program you have to go and find all the instances of calls to that API in your program yourself, either through running automated tests or seeing the broken calls in the debug log of your application. Compiled langauges on the other hand such as Java,C,C++,C# have static calling conventions which means that when you break an api the compiler will point out all the broken calls to you and not let you run your program till you fix them all. This tends to make statically typed languages more maintainable. If you need to break out of static calling conventions you can in Java at least using introspection and bytecode enhancement but this is usually only done in well defined scenarios inside of application frameworks instead of for every class like in Ruby.
Vlissides' generation gap pattern can help solve a lot of the maintainability issues with code auto-generated from a DB's structure. The idea is that you use some tool to auto-generate stubs from your model, and then you extend (in the formal OO sense) those stubs. When your model changes, you can regenerate your stubs without trying to do some ugly merge between your customized templates and those that reflect the new structure.
Sadly, the stupid are shameless.
I have no experience with Ruby or RoR but I am a software engineer like many people here and I would like to stick up for automatic code generation. Modern software is extremely complex and even when excellently designed and implemented by a skilled person or team it is still subject to faults. Automatic code generation, when done properly, is an excellent way to reduce the effort and risk associated with creating certain types of complex systems. A classic example is a parser - hand writing parsers can be done, of course, but they can be notoriously difficult to test and small grammar changes can upset the entire structure of the parser. In this situation, automatic code generation is not only useful, it's also safer and more reliable. If you have to change the grammar, you just reconstruct the parser code.
A compiler is a form of automatic code generation - you don't compile your source by hand, usually, you let the compiler do it. The compiler becomes a cornerstone of your industry and is trusted perhaps far beyond what it really deserves. But the important thing is that it is hopefully consistent and can compile to a lower form much more accurately and faster than you or I or anyone can. You can make large scale higher-level changes without worrying too much about the effects of these at the lower level.
Unfortunately all generalisations fail when you talk about specifics and the implications of this don't need stating, but I think it's unwise to say 'automatic code generation sets off alarm bells' when it is more accurate to think 'writing it manually should set off alarm bells' for many implementations.
I started my first real Rails project with generated scaffolding, but after a few days there was almost nothing left of it. And I almost wish I had never generated the scaffolding because I had to spend time cleaning up tons of files and method stubs that I was never going to use.
I do, however, use the basic "scripts/generate " scripts. They save me a minute or two of creating files and directories and class definitons. Handy, I suppose, but I am not sure if this is considered "generated code." The only "code" that Rails really generates for me is HTML and SQL (Tag Helpers and ActiveRecord) which is pretty nice, actually. The less HTML and SQL i have to write and more I can focus on the actual code, the better.
Re: code generation replacing OO model:
I have no idea what the OP is talking about. RoR is pure OO.
Probably the only thing that I find a little frustrating about RoR is the shear volumn of files involved in a project. Navigating through them gets gradually more time consuming.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
RoR is pushing this whole codegen thing too much (I personally think codegen is the work of mediocre developers who have ego issues, but that's just me). I used RoR for about a day and wrote a little app then realized that maintenance is a pain and that I would have to manually change all the code anyways to make it behave as I want and that codegen created something I did not want. Then I weighed it against writing sevlets and JSP pages and RoR didn't look so appealing. Ruby is a nice scripting language but I didn't like the architecture of rails. Just not for me. Performance was quite bad too, about 6 times slower than JSP for fetching some data from a database, manipulating it (which is the bulk of the work) and displaying it (given JSP gens compiled into Java and takes advantage of JIT). Ruby is a nice language though, but it's not as useful as python. So I struggle to find a place where I can use it, maybe it can be nice as a simple embedded script language (similar to Lua).
If asked what I would use to develop a server side app, I would have to look at volume and complexity then go in the order: C/C++ > servlets > JSP/PHP > RoR (from highest volumen/complexity to lowest). For high volume/complexity C/C++ is still the best efficient way to go but not for all, requires more work from the developers and not for average/weak developers. Servlets are a good next step if performance is not extremely important. JSP/PHP is a good way to run a site that doesn't have complex computation or one that is static content based (news, blog, forum, and such). RoR I would use for maybe some prototyping or to build a quick and dirty app to provide a simple view of the database (but even then I would probably lean to PHP). YMMV.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what most Visual C++ programmers mean by code generation. The "wizard" generates a huge chunk of boilerplate code that the developer never understands. He would prefer not to even look at it, but occasionally has to make some minor tweak.
When I use code generation, I generally write the generator too. As you say, there are two choices: you either generate the code once and then maintain it completely manually (i.e. it's just the scaffolding), or you maintain the generator and the input to the generator but never touch the output of the generator.
Tools like Borland C++ Builder and Rational Rose try to give you the best of both worlds with the "round trip" code generation/reverse engineering. While they do have some advantages, in my opinion they aren't overly successful at it.
Graham
I've been using Rails and Ruby for the past few months -- I had no prior experience with either.
The thing that has become clear to me is that the hard part of Rails is learning *how to do it right*
The "automatic code generation" (scaffolding) is helpful for learning *how to do it right* but as you get deeper into the framework, you find yourself coming up against difficult and/or domain specific problems. In all cases I've encountered so far, there are simple solutions to these problems -- the hard part was finding the right way to solve the problem.
You have to take the time to read the documentation, dig through the source code, think about design patterns, and write elegant Ruby code.
Often, this code is only a few lines long. For example, I had an issue with SQL statements including NULL values when I wanted to pick up a default from the table schema. The solution was a single line of code to remove the named attribute from an array in a Model subclass. It took a few hours of research & prototyping to figure out that one line of code.
So as far as maintainability is concerned, I'd say it's pretty good. That one line of code mentioned above is easy to understand for someone doing maintenance. Less is more.
One final observation that I've made regarding Rails and Ruby -- it's a lot like Cocoa and Objective-C (another excellent framework backed by a dynamic language.) When you find yourself writing a lot of code, it's a good sign that you are doing things wrong.
-ch
The result of the somewhat sloppy documentation is that if I find a function that does something (like by looking at the source) I don't know if it is guaranteed to be there next release. The existing book ("Agile web programming...") is too chatty and not complete and accurate like a reference manual would be.
So I'm somewhat blindly following the examples and when something doesn't work I have to backtrack. Still, all in all, I like it. I need the speed.
And, like a lot of people, I found I had to go back and study Ruby a few times. The existing Ruby docs are great.
But I desperately want a good Rails reference manual.
I18N == Intergalacticization
I hope that the number of highly-modded responses which have had the chance to clarify what code generation is in Rails, and what its purposes are within the development cycle, will allay some of the FUD. When I began learning Rails I was under no impression that code would be generated beyond the scaffold, and that the scaffold was only there to get some meaningful database interaction happening right away. This tutorial which I began learning Rails from explained it clearly:
Of course, these actions and views are very plain--not the sort of thing you'd want users to see (unless they are total geeks). The good news is that we can leave the scaffolding in place and slowly, one at a time, provide our own versions of the actions and views. Each time you create one of the actions or views it will override the scaffold's version. When you're done, simply remove the scaffold statement from the controller.
The way I imagine the misinformation formed is from certain people hearing the sentiment of "faster development in Rails" and jumping to the conclusion that there must be some sort of cheat involved. Watching the video demos probably fueled this, as the demos are showing Rails off, and the scaffolding is a selling point.
> In the end, Ruby is just a MVC and ORM web framework, along with a little bit of code generation to get you started.
Don't forget about testing... The testing framework is probably the best part of the framework, and not enough people are talking about it.
But int the end, Rails is more than just MVC + ORM + Code Generation + Testing. Rails is greater than the sum of its parts. Having all of those thing in one cohesive framework is much better than cobbling together a stack of tools to do the same thing.
Well, if you make a method final in Java, the compiler generates an error when you try to compile an overridden subclass method. That's one way to take care of the problem :-) Perhaps Ruby has something similar...?
RoR, codegen.. from what I gather, there's nothing there that wasn't done years ago. It's called WebObjects. So far, no one has mentioned to me or pointed out anything RoR does in Ruby that WebObjects doesn't do already in Java. Meanwhile you loose the advantage of TONS of mature libraries written in Java. Am I missing something? Is there something particularly compelling about Ruby perhaps? I'm not trying to be condescending toward RoR or anything, but all the 'hype' I've read here about RoR was done a decade ago with WO. Plus, WO does a number of things that I haven't heard the RoR camp boasting, like deploying database connected apps over the internet directly to the desktop with WebStart/D2JC.
Anyone care to enlighten me?
I'm not saying the other guy's right, but, er, you're revealing your ignorance a bit. ...it's java.lang.String...it can dynamically grow and shrink.
No it can't, it's immutable. Strings can only create new objects which have grown or shrunk. Admittedly, the optimised implementation uses the same backing array for the new String, but it's still a new String. A StringBuffer (which in my books is another string class) can dynamically grow and shrink. In 5.0/1.5 there's now also StringBuilder.
PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client