Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rails May Not Suck

Posted by timothy on from the isn't-the-question-whether-rails-suck dept.

KDan writes "With astonishing regularity, articles or posts come out claiming that the popular Ruby on Rails framework sucks in some way or another. People complain that Rails isn't as easy to deploy as PHP, that Rails just didn't do it for project XYZ. They range from the articulate and well thought out to the frankly inane and stupid (and wrong). Recently, there's also of course been the spectacular nuclear rant by Zed Shaw, which was more a rant against random elements of the community than against Rails, but was still presented as a rant against Rails. Here's an article that tries to put some perspective on why these opinions are irrelevant to whether or not Rails sucks."

2 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This just seems like nonsense. by nschubach · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let me summarize the wall of text ;)

    Use the right tool, for the right job.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  2. Re:My experience with RoR by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Informative

    More than anything I'm worried about speed.

    The standard story for dynamic language development applies:

    • Optimizing before you have a problem is a waste of time.
    • There are lots of ways to optimize, up to and including re-writing the bottlenecks in C/C++.

    The most common optimization that's used with Rails is it's built-in support for caching, which can speed things up by quite a bit. You can get the same sort of results with a hand-optimized memcached setup any other dynamic language - but Rails gives it to you almost for free.

    --
    -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.