3 ms·

Ask HN: Rails vs. Java?

My go-to framework for the past 5 years has been Rails, but I keep hearing about how - in terms of scalability and speed - you can't beat "Java" (but never any mention of the framework being used, and there are quite a few[1]). I'd like to see if the syntactical hassel is really worth the speed boost. Is there an equivalent "Rails" for the Java community? 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks#Java_2

bartonfink 14y ago
Play! is meant to be a Rails-like framework for the JVM. I use it at Mapquest (version 1.2), and I like it so far. It contains its own compiler and server, so you don't need to rebuild or redeploy when you're developing like you might in other frameworks. I've used Play! 2 for a freelance gig, and didn't like it as much. It tries to compile EVERYTHING (HTML templates, your routes file, etc), and for the simple app I was trying to accomplish, that simply wasn't necessary and led to a lot of unnecessary fighting. I'd recommend giving Play! a try.
- christiangenco 14y ago
  Got it. I'll take a look - thanks!
cheald 14y ago
Have you tried JRuby? You get all your Ruby on top of the JVM. By a number of anecdotal accounts, it's quite fast once you get past the JIT warm-up period. You also get the ability to use native Java libraries from your Ruby code, which gives you a really nice transition mechanism if you decide to move towards a pure Java solution.
- logn 14y ago
  I'm not seeing how JRuby is much more efficient: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=jruby&lang2=yarv http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al... Some tests are faster and some are slower. Nowhere near as efficient as Java.
- christiangenco 14y ago
  Oh wow, Rails runs in JRuby. Interesting...
  - cheald 14y ago
    Yup. The prime caveat is that any gems that use C extensions have to be replaced with Java equivalents (mysql2, for example), but it runs just dandy. The boot time is atrocious, but you can run your Rails app multi-threaded in a single process, and once the JIT warms up, it's pretty danged speedy.
lmm 14y ago
If you try to write rails and ruby in Java you will leave angry and disappointed. I would suggest you look for a Java-oriented framework that leverages Java's strengths (I love wicket for the way it uses java's strong typing to enforce properly reusable components, and make upgrades easy); that way even if you return to ruby you'll have learned something.
- christiangenco 14y ago
  Hah, fair enough. I'll add Wicket to the list! For the record, I'm trying to find if there is one dominant framework in Java that everybody's using as there is in Ruby, not necessarily looking for an easy way out ;)
  - lmm 14y ago
    It's not about looking for an easy way out, you really have to be prepared to embrace not just new tools but a whole new way of thinking. As a former python diehard it took me a long, long time to understand why anyone would choose to use java - but it does have its advantages, and wicket is the best demonstration I've found of what it makes possible.
dotborg2 14y ago
Apache Cocoon, MVC framework designed for RAD
exabrial 14y ago
If you want a serious discussion about Java, watch this video from an Engineer at Urban Airship: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Java-next http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Java-next The short summary is: Yes, it's worth the syntactical hassel because your tooling takes care of it for you. No, you won't be writing code with Notepad anymore... but would/should you trust a carpenter that insisted nailing every nail in your house with a hammar instead of pneumatic air nailer? Java is not just a language, it's a tool suite. So Java "sucks" until you learn the tooling. After your learn the tooling, it's fast, simple, productive, and out-scales anything.
- christiangenco 14y ago
  An excellent defense of the Java language Mr. exabrial, but any recommendations for Java web frameworks? :D
  - exabrial 14y ago
    ...that's a bit harder to answer. It really depends on YOU, your ability to learn, and your project requirements :) First, there is trusty JSP and EL. They're blazingly fast. But they aren't a framework, there just libraries. If you want full-stack Rails, but Java, Play isn't bad. I've used it once, but I felt constrained (much like I do in Rails). I probably needed to give it more time because it does do a lot of things. The newest version of Tapestry isn't bad. They've had the same lead developer on this project for years, so they've really refined this project over time. You might take a look at the programming model and see what you think, it's can be a little different. I personally like PrimeFaces/JSF2.0. It's good for large applications since the framework handles all the javascript and Ajax in a very elegant way. If There is also a rabid fanbase (check Twitter). There is tooling involved here, so expect a learning curve. There's others I haven't used, but my IRL friends have told me they like: GWT - Building single page, javascript applications ThymeLeaf - The sucessor for JSP that uses Spring Framework ZK JSP - A bunch of cool prebuilt widgets for JSP pages There are many others, but I've only read about them. With Java, you have tons of choice. There is no "one single killer framework" for Java, so take a look around, and find one that suits your style.
karterk 14y ago
Play is the closest - but it's nowhere near the maturity of Rails. One good strategy that I see a lot of companies adopt is to write a services layer in Java/Scala and then keep the front-end Rails app part light weight. This way, you get the benefits of a robust, type-checked backend and the flexibility of Rails for the strictly web related stuff like asset pipelines etc. Of course, the downside is that you need to switch context between two languages. However, this has not bothered me in the past too much.
- christiangenco 14y ago
  Oh interesting. That would be quite nice, actually... Have you found Play to be significantly faster than Rails/worth the context switching?
- ciniglio 14y ago
  For this approach, how do you tie the two pieces together (e.g. the Java and Rails parts)? Do you have recommendations for where to start learning about building one system with multiple languages?
  - scottschulthess 14y ago
    I believe OP is referring to a service-based architecture. Basically you have a front-end, written in rails, and a back-end, written in java. The two communicate using REST service calls. Personally I think for a lot of apps this approac has a lot more cons than pros. - everyone that wants to work on the app needs to know both ruby/rails and java/whatever else - multiple ways to handle deployment, continous integration, testing (different tools for java vs ruby). - have to run multiple apps constantly to be able to do end-to-end testing - harder to create full-stack integration tests - deployments between the apps are often coupled and thus require more planning - more up front API design work for the team. much harder to add new features that require API changes than ones that dont. - Automated end to end integration testing can be much harder to do with an app made up of multiple services than simply living inside on process and being able to have test code access both databases to seed data.
- 14y ago
karianna 14y ago
Several people have mentioned Play. There's also Grails, designed as an familiar clone of Rails. There's also Spring Roo, and JBoss's SEAM. Scala also has Lift and Clojure has Compojure (if Lisp style languages are your thing) So plenty of choice! I'd highly recommend using Matt Raible's JVM web framework evaluation technique and then following up with a prototype in the top two. Time spent up front deciding on the framework that fits you will be time well spent.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
aquaphile 14y ago
For reference, if nothing else, look at the open-source derivatives of WebObjects. Per Wikipedia: "Apache Tapestry has a design and philosophy similar to that of WebObjects. Tapestry is frequently combined with Apache Cayenne, a persistence framework inspired by EOF." The WebObject 5.x series was built around Java.

bartonfink 14y ago

Play! is meant to be a Rails-like framework for the JVM. I use it at Mapquest (version 1.2), and I like it so far. It contains its own compiler and server, so you don't need to rebuild or redeploy when you're developing like you might in other frameworks. I've used Play! 2 for a freelance gig, and didn't like it as much. It tries to compile EVERYTHING (HTML templates, your routes file, etc), and for the simple app I was trying to accomplish, that simply wasn't necessary and led to a lot of unnecessary fighting. I'd recommend giving Play! a try.

christiangenco 14y ago
Got it. I'll take a look - thanks!

cheald 14y ago

Have you tried JRuby? You get all your Ruby on top of the JVM. By a number of anecdotal accounts, it's quite fast once you get past the JIT warm-up period. You also get the ability to use native Java libraries from your Ruby code, which gives you a really nice transition mechanism if you decide to move towards a pure Java solution.

logn 14y ago
I'm not seeing how JRuby is much more efficient: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=jruby&lang2=yarv http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al... Some tests are faster and some are slower. Nowhere near as efficient as Java.
christiangenco 14y ago
Oh wow, Rails runs in JRuby. Interesting...
- cheald 14y ago
  Yup. The prime caveat is that any gems that use C extensions have to be replaced with Java equivalents (mysql2, for example), but it runs just dandy. The boot time is atrocious, but you can run your Rails app multi-threaded in a single process, and once the JIT warms up, it's pretty danged speedy.

lmm 14y ago

If you try to write rails and ruby in Java you will leave angry and disappointed. I would suggest you look for a Java-oriented framework that leverages Java's strengths (I love wicket for the way it uses java's strong typing to enforce properly reusable components, and make upgrades easy); that way even if you return to ruby you'll have learned something.

christiangenco 14y ago
Hah, fair enough. I'll add Wicket to the list! For the record, I'm trying to find if there is one dominant framework in Java that everybody's using as there is in Ruby, not necessarily looking for an easy way out ;)
- lmm 14y ago
  It's not about looking for an easy way out, you really have to be prepared to embrace not just new tools but a whole new way of thinking. As a former python diehard it took me a long, long time to understand why anyone would choose to use java - but it does have its advantages, and wicket is the best demonstration I've found of what it makes possible.

dotborg2 14y ago

Apache Cocoon, MVC framework designed for RAD

exabrial 14y ago

If you want a serious discussion about Java, watch this video from an Engineer at Urban Airship: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Java-next http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Java-next The short summary is: Yes, it's worth the syntactical hassel because your tooling takes care of it for you. No, you won't be writing code with Notepad anymore... but would/should you trust a carpenter that insisted nailing every nail in your house with a hammar instead of pneumatic air nailer? Java is not just a language, it's a tool suite. So Java "sucks" until you learn the tooling. After your learn the tooling, it's fast, simple, productive, and out-scales anything.

christiangenco 14y ago
An excellent defense of the Java language Mr. exabrial, but any recommendations for Java web frameworks? :D
- exabrial 14y ago
  ...that's a bit harder to answer. It really depends on YOU, your ability to learn, and your project requirements :) First, there is trusty JSP and EL. They're blazingly fast. But they aren't a framework, there just libraries. If you want full-stack Rails, but Java, Play isn't bad. I've used it once, but I felt constrained (much like I do in Rails). I probably needed to give it more time because it does do a lot of things. The newest version of Tapestry isn't bad. They've had the same lead developer on this project for years, so they've really refined this project over time. You might take a look at the programming model and see what you think, it's can be a little different. I personally like PrimeFaces/JSF2.0. It's good for large applications since the framework handles all the javascript and Ajax in a very elegant way. If There is also a rabid fanbase (check Twitter). There is tooling involved here, so expect a learning curve. There's others I haven't used, but my IRL friends have told me they like: GWT - Building single page, javascript applications ThymeLeaf - The sucessor for JSP that uses Spring Framework ZK JSP - A bunch of cool prebuilt widgets for JSP pages There are many others, but I've only read about them. With Java, you have tons of choice. There is no "one single killer framework" for Java, so take a look around, and find one that suits your style.

karterk 14y ago

Play is the closest - but it's nowhere near the maturity of Rails. One good strategy that I see a lot of companies adopt is to write a services layer in Java/Scala and then keep the front-end Rails app part light weight. This way, you get the benefits of a robust, type-checked backend and the flexibility of Rails for the strictly web related stuff like asset pipelines etc. Of course, the downside is that you need to switch context between two languages. However, this has not bothered me in the past too much.

christiangenco 14y ago
Oh interesting. That would be quite nice, actually... Have you found Play to be significantly faster than Rails/worth the context switching?
ciniglio 14y ago
For this approach, how do you tie the two pieces together (e.g. the Java and Rails parts)? Do you have recommendations for where to start learning about building one system with multiple languages?
- scottschulthess 14y ago
  I believe OP is referring to a service-based architecture. Basically you have a front-end, written in rails, and a back-end, written in java. The two communicate using REST service calls. Personally I think for a lot of apps this approac has a lot more cons than pros. - everyone that wants to work on the app needs to know both ruby/rails and java/whatever else - multiple ways to handle deployment, continous integration, testing (different tools for java vs ruby). - have to run multiple apps constantly to be able to do end-to-end testing - harder to create full-stack integration tests - deployments between the apps are often coupled and thus require more planning - more up front API design work for the team. much harder to add new features that require API changes than ones that dont. - Automated end to end integration testing can be much harder to do with an app made up of multiple services than simply living inside on process and being able to have test code access both databases to seed data.
14y ago

karianna 14y ago

Several people have mentioned Play. There's also Grails, designed as an familiar clone of Rails. There's also Spring Roo, and JBoss's SEAM. Scala also has Lift and Clojure has Compojure (if Lisp style languages are your thing) So plenty of choice! I'd highly recommend using Matt Raible's JVM web framework evaluation technique and then following up with a prototype in the top two. Time spent up front deciding on the framework that fits you will be time well spent.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

aquaphile 14y ago

For reference, if nothing else, look at the open-source derivatives of WebObjects. Per Wikipedia: "Apache Tapestry has a design and philosophy similar to that of WebObjects. Tapestry is frequently combined with Apache Cayenne, a persistence framework inspired by EOF." The WebObject 5.x series was built around Java.