Odd. I'm pretty sure that back in the 70's, people weren't watching hi-def movies, encoding MP3's, playing realisitic games, communicating via video phone with someone across the globe...
Computer software has revolutionized how we work. And aside from games, there's no reason why anyone would have needed to upgrade their computer within the last four years or so for normal desktop computing.
Odd? You give people a hard problem and ask them to solve it in a given amount of time. If two teams manage to solve the problem, then you can evaluate the solutions based on speed, executable size, or whatever.
The music industry survived for years and years with NO copy restrictions at all. Tapes and CD's could be copied at will.
But it was only feasible to give those copies to people close to you. And tapes generally suffered degraded quality on transfer. CD copies also were pretty expensive until recently.
Now, millions of people can automatically get a copy of one person's song. Big difference than in the past.
He was comparing the RoR and Java implementations of this particular application. In this case, a sort of non-trivial web app, RoR seemed to be the best fit.
Anyways, Rails is not 1.0. Changes are to be expected. It's not supposed to be perfect yet. And the developer should know the quoting rules for the DB that he/she's using.
Who's trying to apply RoR to situations where it doesn't work?
The point is try to figure out what tool is going to work best in what situation. For the application mentioned in the article, it's clear that RoR is the best fit. For all my applications, RoR is the best fit. And I don't think anyone's tried yet to put RoR in an application where it wouldn't fit.
It's pretty trivial to create C extensions to Ruby if performance becomes an issue. And using the C extensions is no different than using pure Ruby code. So, from the user's standpoint, there's no difference between using Ruby to access an xml C library and a pure Ruby xml library.
Wow, you're good at regurgitating serverside articles. Active Record does have a (very) simple cache. Anyways, Active Record solves different problems than Hibernate. For the vast majority of web apps, AR is probably just fine. And it's still being constantly tweaked and added to (since Rails is not 1.0 yet).
Link to the "fastest Ruby XML parser implementation"? I'm guessing it's not the C extension one.
You are confused and the other posts in this thread do confirm it. Feel free to take a couple seconds to search the archives and prove yourself wrong though.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, so they can send bin@laden.com a MS Word virus!!!
Or, not.
Odd, there's plenty of girls under 18 in jail for murder.
Odd. I'm pretty sure that back in the 70's, people weren't watching hi-def movies, encoding MP3's, playing realisitic games, communicating via video phone with someone across the globe...
Computer software has revolutionized how we work. And aside from games, there's no reason why anyone would have needed to upgrade their computer within the last four years or so for normal desktop computing.
FreeBSD, for sure.
Why is a joke modded "Interesting"?
Odd? You give people a hard problem and ask them to solve it in a given amount of time. If two teams manage to solve the problem, then you can evaluate the solutions based on speed, executable size, or whatever.
You're a couple years out of date. It's been storing stuff on the file system for quite some time now.
Sure it does. He could decide to spend it all on a private shape ship, or use it to build nuclear weapons and give them to terrorists.
He has lots of options. Giving a ton of cash to AIDS research and education is great of him.
No, you shouldn't use scaffolding for real stuff. It's for development only.
Is that the only other thing you can come up with?
The music industry survived for years and years with NO copy restrictions at all. Tapes and CD's could be copied at will.
But it was only feasible to give those copies to people close to you. And tapes generally suffered degraded quality on transfer. CD copies also were pretty expensive until recently.
Now, millions of people can automatically get a copy of one person's song. Big difference than in the past.
What if I lose it?
"No attempt at being secure"? And you're basing that off of one place in AR that could be used wrong?
Good god. Stop with the FUD.
Did those people ever TRY using Rails on a complex application? The author of this article actually DID. And strongly preferred RoR.
He was comparing the RoR and Java implementations of this particular application. In this case, a sort of non-trivial web app, RoR seemed to be the best fit.
Hm. Interesting.
Anyways, Rails is not 1.0. Changes are to be expected. It's not supposed to be perfect yet. And the developer should know the quoting rules for the DB that he/she's using.
And it's not like there's no documentation out there for securing your web app. Oh wait. http://manuals.rubyonrails.com/read/book/8
Who's trying to apply RoR to situations where it doesn't work?
The point is try to figure out what tool is going to work best in what situation. For the application mentioned in the article, it's clear that RoR is the best fit. For all my applications, RoR is the best fit. And I don't think anyone's tried yet to put RoR in an application where it wouldn't fit.
It's pretty trivial to create C extensions to Ruby if performance becomes an issue. And using the C extensions is no different than using pure Ruby code. So, from the user's standpoint, there's no difference between using Ruby to access an xml C library and a pure Ruby xml library.
Wow, you're good at regurgitating serverside articles. Active Record does have a (very) simple cache. Anyways, Active Record solves different problems than Hibernate. For the vast majority of web apps, AR is probably just fine. And it's still being constantly tweaked and added to (since Rails is not 1.0 yet).
Link to the "fastest Ruby XML parser implementation"? I'm guessing it's not the C extension one.
Uh, ok. You seem all worked up.
No search? http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.ruby.rails
You are confused and the other posts in this thread do confirm it. Feel free to take a couple seconds to search the archives and prove yourself wrong though.
ruby-gnome2 is pretty good. all i've used. there's also tk and wxwidgets.
GUI programming's probably not Ruby's strong point though, especially on Windows.
How is this different from any other web framework?
It's not hard to sanitize your input in Rails. So do it.
The FUD on this article is simply amazing.
No idea. Sorry. Ask the mailing list for rails if you really need an answer.
And bla-bla uses Flash for the UI. Which makes the UI horrible and unusable for me.
Link please. I think you've got things confused.
Oh, and all the automatic SQL code generated by Rails IS safe.
It's when the user wants to send raw SQL to the database that security problems could exist.