You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modperl@perl.apache.org by Harry Zhu <ha...@greatlodge.com> on 2006/03/06 23:41:14 UTC
Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan" <jv...@2xlp.com>
To: "mod_perl List" <mo...@perl.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby
>
> there's been a popular link critiquing rails floating around
>
> http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.309321.3
>
> personally, I hate rails. i'm seeing a lot of colleagues adopt it,
> with a combination of this reasoning:
> it 'sucks less than php' ( from someone with a php book )
> its perfect for doing small sites regardless of traffic
> remember, there are 2 types of scaling :
> a- lots of users / content
> b- lots of hits
> rails can scale on b reasonably well behind lighty w/fcgi. just
> loadbalance and toss server after server into a cluster.
> the bulk of its use is design shop stuff
>
> but all my colleagues/friends work for design shops
>
> not to knock rails, but the biggest project they've been implemented
> with , as far as i can tell, is odeo. lots of other projects are done
> in it, but none that scale in use and content like that one, and it
> doesn't really impress me. there could be something else out there,
> but i've yet to see it. all the projects i've seen done on it are
> blogs, small sharing apps, design agency stuff, etc. it does that
> stuff really well and really fast, but there's no breadth to it.
> AFAIK the big blog implementation service that touts rails is run as
> multiple installations each behind their own lighty instance with
> fcgi support.
>
> this fall, I quit my FT job to start an online sharing / syndication
> service that will hopefully go live within the month.
>
> i evaluated a ton of frameworks and languages, here's how i felt:
>
> ruby - rails was getting all the hype. i tried rails and had a
> webapp running in minutes. it was a sheer pleasure as promised.
> except rails couldn't do what i wanted to do for my project. it was
> way to strict. its made for building a certain type of application -
> not every application.
> c - would have been the fastest to run and scale the best.
> nightmare to write.
> php - i found it a nightmare to maintain code and enforce MVC, and i
> intensely dislike the model of everything essentially being a cgi
> script. i wanted everything compiled into the server, as i'm running
> a single service, not 20 differentn projects for 20 clients like I
> managed at my old design agency.
> python - the spec on the twisted framework kept changing. django
> was too Rail's-ish in scope. turbogears didn't exist yet, but also a
> bit too rails-ish for me.
> perl - i don't like template toolkit or mason. i know many do. i
> just don't. they're both very perlish in the templates. catalyst
> wasn't really around yet - maypole was, but also too rails ish.
>
> i ended up building my own MVC 'framework' under mp2. i get all the
> speed and server integration that I wanted. i'm tossing framework
> in quotes, because everything is too built-into my app. i'd love to
> pull it out and release it, but its not there yet. it basically just
> does url dispatching to perl modules + session control in a
> standardized manner, and has an abstracted api for content
> rendering. all html pages are written TAL, because I use python
> to prototype objects and methods and handle admin tasks. this lets
> me use the same exact templates for prototyping. one might think
> that perl or ruby is fast/easy to write - well (for me)python is a
> fraction of it -- and program/test in python than port to mod_perl is
> way faster (again for me than ) doing everything in mod_perl.
>
> i think the reasons why rails gets so much hype are this:
> it makes building a certain type of project easy. those projects
> are 'popular' as are the companies building them. so when people
> talk about it, others listen.
> its gaining a lot of ground w/newcomers to web building, as its easy
> and intuitive. so more people talk about it.
> it converts a lot of people from .NET or java, who hear the hype and
> give it a shot. truth be told, they find it a dream. who wouldn't
> after that conversion?
>
> so depending on what you're building, RoR may be the best framework
> for you, or a complete nightmare. its certainly not the jack-of-all-
> trades, and neither is catalyst. using any framework or language,
> your milage WILL vary compared to others.
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Mark Galbreath wrote:
>
>> which then begs the question, why RoR and not Catalyst?
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006
>
>
Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby
Posted by Harry Zhu <ha...@greatlodge.com>.
Sorry, it's an accident to reply to the list.
Harry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Zhu" <ha...@greatlodge.com>
To: "Jonathan" <jv...@2xlp.com>; "mod_perl List"
<mo...@perl.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan" <jv...@2xlp.com>
> To: "mod_perl List" <mo...@perl.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby
>
>
>>
>> there's been a popular link critiquing rails floating around
>>
>> http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.309321.3
>>
>> personally, I hate rails. i'm seeing a lot of colleagues adopt it,
>> with a combination of this reasoning:
>> it 'sucks less than php' ( from someone with a php book )
>> its perfect for doing small sites regardless of traffic
>> remember, there are 2 types of scaling :
>> a- lots of users / content
>> b- lots of hits
>> rails can scale on b reasonably well behind lighty w/fcgi. just
>> loadbalance and toss server after server into a cluster.
>> the bulk of its use is design shop stuff
>>
>> but all my colleagues/friends work for design shops
>>
>> not to knock rails, but the biggest project they've been implemented
>> with , as far as i can tell, is odeo. lots of other projects are done in
>> it, but none that scale in use and content like that one, and it doesn't
>> really impress me. there could be something else out there, but i've
>> yet to see it. all the projects i've seen done on it are blogs, small
>> sharing apps, design agency stuff, etc. it does that stuff really well
>> and really fast, but there's no breadth to it. AFAIK the big blog
>> implementation service that touts rails is run as multiple installations
>> each behind their own lighty instance with fcgi support.
>>
>> this fall, I quit my FT job to start an online sharing / syndication
>> service that will hopefully go live within the month.
>>
>> i evaluated a ton of frameworks and languages, here's how i felt:
>>
>> ruby - rails was getting all the hype. i tried rails and had a webapp
>> running in minutes. it was a sheer pleasure as promised. except rails
>> couldn't do what i wanted to do for my project. it was way to strict.
>> its made for building a certain type of application - not every
>> application.
>> c - would have been the fastest to run and scale the best. nightmare to
>> write.
>> php - i found it a nightmare to maintain code and enforce MVC, and i
>> intensely dislike the model of everything essentially being a cgi
>> script. i wanted everything compiled into the server, as i'm running a
>> single service, not 20 differentn projects for 20 clients like I managed
>> at my old design agency.
>> python - the spec on the twisted framework kept changing. django was
>> too Rail's-ish in scope. turbogears didn't exist yet, but also a bit
>> too rails-ish for me.
>> perl - i don't like template toolkit or mason. i know many do. i just
>> don't. they're both very perlish in the templates. catalyst wasn't
>> really around yet - maypole was, but also too rails ish.
>>
>> i ended up building my own MVC 'framework' under mp2. i get all the
>> speed and server integration that I wanted. i'm tossing framework in
>> quotes, because everything is too built-into my app. i'd love to pull
>> it out and release it, but its not there yet. it basically just does
>> url dispatching to perl modules + session control in a standardized
>> manner, and has an abstracted api for content rendering. all html
>> pages are written TAL, because I use python to prototype objects and
>> methods and handle admin tasks. this lets me use the same exact
>> templates for prototyping. one might think that perl or ruby is
>> fast/easy to write - well (for me)python is a fraction of it -- and
>> program/test in python than port to mod_perl is way faster (again for me
>> than ) doing everything in mod_perl.
>>
>> i think the reasons why rails gets so much hype are this:
>> it makes building a certain type of project easy. those projects are
>> 'popular' as are the companies building them. so when people talk about
>> it, others listen.
>> its gaining a lot of ground w/newcomers to web building, as its easy and
>> intuitive. so more people talk about it.
>> it converts a lot of people from .NET or java, who hear the hype and
>> give it a shot. truth be told, they find it a dream. who wouldn't
>> after that conversion?
>>
>> so depending on what you're building, RoR may be the best framework for
>> you, or a complete nightmare. its certainly not the jack-of-all- trades,
>> and neither is catalyst. using any framework or language, your milage
>> WILL vary compared to others.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Mark Galbreath wrote:
>>
>>> which then begs the question, why RoR and not Catalyst?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006
>>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.0/275 - Release Date: 3/6/2006
>
>