3 ms·
Rails != Ruby. Play (http://www.playframework.org http://www.playframework.org) successfully replicates the Rails experience in Java (finally). What Rails did
by rufugee 17y ago
Rails != Ruby. Play (http://www.playframework.org http://www.playframework.org) successfully replicates the Rails experience in Java (finally).
What Rails did was introduce a new way of thinking about pragmatic approaches to developing CRUD web apps. While ruby apologists (I once was one!) will argue that Rails couldn't have existed without Ruby, that's simply not the case. Rails was just there first...a trailblazer. But Rails could've been written in perl, python, or even, as Play shows, Java.
- rbanffy 17y agoSorry, but Ruby pretty much is Rails. There is very little Ruby that's not written to be used in conjunction with Rails. Play, while impressive, still retains most of the ugliness of Java. It's hard to compare it to a DSL like Rails.
- raganwald 17y ago> Sorry, but Ruby pretty much is Rails. Nope. That's like saying cycling pretty much is riding around on the street on sub $200 machines just because that's what most people do with a bicycle. To you there may be relatively little Ruby that isn't used in conjunction with Rails but that is not the same thing as saying that there is very little in an absolute sense. And surprisingly, the uses outside of Rails may be the most influential in terms of its direction and future as a language, thanks to the particular circumstances of Matz and what interests him. To cherry-pick an example, he is loathe to work on things that would have the side-effect of slowing Ruby's startup time. This is a tradeoff that is good for long-running server applications like J2EE stacks, but bad for writing scripts. Of course, there's JRuby which goes in the other direction. We'll see what happens with that kind of thing.