3 ms·

Understood, but arguably a lot of those Rails2 apps are not being actively updated, or they would have been rolled over to Rails3 by now. Anyhow, add me to the

• wheels 16y ago
  It's interesting that you say that -- and I don't mean this to be contentious -- I've genuinely had the opposite impression. Unfortunately HN's a bad place to get a sense for such things since it tends to be way ahead of the curve. (i.e. things like Node and Scala appear far more mainstream reading HN than they are in practice.) Most of the folks I know working on Rails 2 sites have only started taking Rails 3 seriously in the last month or two and don't seem to be in a hurry to upgrade. It'd be interesting to see a curve of when major rails deployment cut over (if they do). I wonder if there's a tell-tale Rails 3 signature that could be used combined with e.g. an 80legs crawl?
  • trustfundbaby 16y ago
    That has been my experience too ... the place where I work had about 3 Rails 2 apps and we've built 2 more using Rails 2 in the last 4 months. When we go to Rails 3, we'll do it all at once and it won't be in the next 3 or 4 months either ...
  • patio11 16y ago
    Not major, but just anecdotally, all of my Rails apps are 2.x and I have no plans to migrate within 6 months.
• angelbob 16y ago
  Rails 3 is a very substantial effort to upgrade to. There are definitely actively-updated apps that are doing it more gradually (add no_xss, add bundler, convert in bits) but haven't made it to Rails 3 yet. I expect that's more the rule than the exception right now, in fact.
  • chaostheory 16y ago
    it's not a walk in the park, but since a lot of stuff is backwards compatible; it's not that bad