4 ms·

The Ruby train goes blah blah blah

8 points by colin_jack 15y ago

sradnidge 15y ago
The interchangeable use of 'Ruby' and 'Rails' in the original article (and some of the comments) is indicative of someone who has not taken the time to understand either. Conjecture like that is not worth the GET.
- hugorodgerbrown 15y ago
  Interchangeable in what sense: "And I think that Rails is a cool platform, I really do." "And I like the ruby language. A lot." How much clearer could he be?
rohitarondekar 15y ago
First and foremost there is more to Ruby then Rails. Rails is one framework albeit the most popular Ruby framework. Ruby as a community is growing and developers are writing cool things with it. It's also available on the JVM and there is Ruby implementation written mostly in Ruby. I think the problem here is that the author is writing about "Rails Developers". <language/framework> developers usually have a narrow minded view about other languages/frameworks and hence call themselves <language/framework> developers. Real developers use the right tool for the job. I've come across some really delightful developers who write Ruby/Rails who are pretty appreciative of other languages. This notion that all developers who use Rails are arrogant is not true anymore IMHO.
hkarthik 15y ago
The author seems to be focusing his argument primarily on productivity and tooling. In that regard, I agree that C# and all the surrounding OSS has surpassed vanilla Java and is starting to catch up to Rails. However, he neglects to mention anything about deployment, hosting, data storage, and long term infrastructure costs associated with being on Windows and .NET. These are real problems that startups have to weigh along side productivity when choosing their stack. While Mono is certainly an option, the recent shaky history surrounding its corporate sponsorship makes it a riskier choice. Also you lose most of the tooling advantages if you use Mono on Linux instead of .NET on Windows.

4 ms·

The Ruby train goes blah blah blah

8 points by colin_jack 15y ago

sradnidge 15y ago
The interchangeable use of 'Ruby' and 'Rails' in the original article (and some of the comments) is indicative of someone who has not taken the time to understand either. Conjecture like that is not worth the GET.
- hugorodgerbrown 15y ago
  Interchangeable in what sense: "And I think that Rails is a cool platform, I really do." "And I like the ruby language. A lot." How much clearer could he be?
rohitarondekar 15y ago
First and foremost there is more to Ruby then Rails. Rails is one framework albeit the most popular Ruby framework. Ruby as a community is growing and developers are writing cool things with it. It's also available on the JVM and there is Ruby implementation written mostly in Ruby. I think the problem here is that the author is writing about "Rails Developers". <language/framework> developers usually have a narrow minded view about other languages/frameworks and hence call themselves <language/framework> developers. Real developers use the right tool for the job. I've come across some really delightful developers who write Ruby/Rails who are pretty appreciative of other languages. This notion that all developers who use Rails are arrogant is not true anymore IMHO.
hkarthik 15y ago
The author seems to be focusing his argument primarily on productivity and tooling. In that regard, I agree that C# and all the surrounding OSS has surpassed vanilla Java and is starting to catch up to Rails. However, he neglects to mention anything about deployment, hosting, data storage, and long term infrastructure costs associated with being on Windows and .NET. These are real problems that startups have to weigh along side productivity when choosing their stack. While Mono is certainly an option, the recent shaky history surrounding its corporate sponsorship makes it a riskier choice. Also you lose most of the tooling advantages if you use Mono on Linux instead of .NET on Windows.