3 ms·
Oh come on. The evidence that tech like Rails can be used to build non-toy apps is abundant. When shops like Thoughtworks are bailing on Java for Ruby you know
by cageface 15y ago
Oh come on. The evidence that tech like Rails can be used to build non-toy apps is abundant. When shops like Thoughtworks are bailing on Java for Ruby you know you can no longer shut down rational discussion of choices with weasel words like "toy" and "enterprise class". Rails is not the hammer for every nail but it wasn't long ago that doing the "right" thing meant pounding in every nail with a walrus like J2EE.
- einhverfr 15y agoI think it's interesting that the emphasis on defending something like Rails is based on a comparison to J2EE. My real gripe with Rails is about how it disparages good enterprise-class database practices, and so this is why I'd call it a "toy" system. That doesn't mean you can't do interesting things with it, but rather that you are essentially talking about an application closely tied to the db schema it stores its data in. The idea of enterprise-class applications sharing their data in a common database is something entirely foreign to (and incompatible with) the Rails way. This doesn't mean it can't be used in an enterprise environment. For example, you could have a Rails/MySQL app with data imported periodically into a PostgreSQL multi-application database, but I wouldn't call the former "enterprise-class."
- radicalbyte 15y ago> When shops like Thoughtworks are bailing on Java for Ruby They're swapping Java for Ruby, not Java for Rails. Ruby is, performance aside, a really nice language. It's certainly possible to build something "enterprise class" in Ruby. Especially as soon as you start treating Ruby as a meta-language and build your own DSLs in it Rails on the other hand isn't really enterprise grade. It's constrained by Active Record, and the immaturity (and lack of popularity) of the alternatives.