4 ms·

I think there's only one reason why a company would run Rails 2.3 in 2013: greed. There's no way you absolutely cannot somehow find a way in about 4 years to m

I think there's only one reason why a company would run Rails 2.3 in 2013: greed. There's no way you absolutely cannot somehow find a way in about 4 years to migrate even a big code base to at least Rails 3. It's not like the migration was that complicated, there are countless guides around, a devoted community, IRC channels, consultants aplenty and even tools to hold your hand along the way.

jiggy2011 13y ago
Greed? More likely apathy and conservatism.
sneak 13y ago
How about "it ain't broke"? That's not greed.
- VeejayRampay 13y ago
  Come on now. It's like being in a car at 80 kph in the direction of a wall and claiming that the trajectory is "just fine" a few seconds before impact. If you couldn't somehow find a way to work around the well-known end of life for Rails 2.3, then you had it coming. There's a point as a business man where you need to invest the money to make more money. In this case, fixing your code base so that it can be ready for the 4, 5 years to come.
  - steven777400 13y ago
    It's more difficult in slow-moving enterprise environments. In our environment, the time from someone saying "we should do this" until it's in production can easily be 3 years. Then, add the lifetime of use which can span even decades (depending on the application). Long-term managers and architects have seen many, many technologies and methodologies come and go, and treat claims of "you better change that system quick!" with skepticism (doesn't mean it isn't true). Four to five years of life for an enterprise code base is a blink of an eye. If I proposed a major framework/foundation change for a four year old application, I'd be getting some unpleasant looks.
  - reinhardt 13y ago
    No, it's like having a car that you don't mind driving for the rest of the decade (barring any serious accident), as opposed to exchanging it for a new one every 3 years to keep up with the Joneses.
jrochkind1 13y ago
> It's not like the migration was that complicated Really? If that was your experience, you are fortunate, but it does not match that of many. For me, the migration of several apps from Rails 2.3 to 3 was THAT COMPLICATED. The last one I finally got finished about 9 months ago. If someone was complaining about, say, Rails 3.0 to 3.2 -- sure, i'd agree, it's not really that complicated, just do it. But 2.3 to 3? So very many of us found that experience to be highly unpleasant and quite that complicated. I'm glad you didn't, but your experience is not even typical, let alone universal.
- pimeys 13y ago
  It is very complicated. I upgraded one of our apps from 2.3 to 3.2 recently. The nicest thing was that the app didn't have any views and even the controller layer was slim; we had only one! The update took around two weeks of time from two developers. The app is one of our core apps and runs very important tasks. Probably the best thing is to remove Rails completely from there.

jiggy2011 13y ago

Greed? More likely apathy and conservatism.

sneak 13y ago

How about "it ain't broke"? That's not greed.

VeejayRampay 13y ago
Come on now. It's like being in a car at 80 kph in the direction of a wall and claiming that the trajectory is "just fine" a few seconds before impact. If you couldn't somehow find a way to work around the well-known end of life for Rails 2.3, then you had it coming. There's a point as a business man where you need to invest the money to make more money. In this case, fixing your code base so that it can be ready for the 4, 5 years to come.
- steven777400 13y ago
  It's more difficult in slow-moving enterprise environments. In our environment, the time from someone saying "we should do this" until it's in production can easily be 3 years. Then, add the lifetime of use which can span even decades (depending on the application). Long-term managers and architects have seen many, many technologies and methodologies come and go, and treat claims of "you better change that system quick!" with skepticism (doesn't mean it isn't true). Four to five years of life for an enterprise code base is a blink of an eye. If I proposed a major framework/foundation change for a four year old application, I'd be getting some unpleasant looks.
- reinhardt 13y ago
  No, it's like having a car that you don't mind driving for the rest of the decade (barring any serious accident), as opposed to exchanging it for a new one every 3 years to keep up with the Joneses.

jrochkind1 13y ago

> It's not like the migration was that complicated Really? If that was your experience, you are fortunate, but it does not match that of many. For me, the migration of several apps from Rails 2.3 to 3 was THAT COMPLICATED. The last one I finally got finished about 9 months ago. If someone was complaining about, say, Rails 3.0 to 3.2 -- sure, i'd agree, it's not really that complicated, just do it. But 2.3 to 3? So very many of us found that experience to be highly unpleasant and quite that complicated. I'm glad you didn't, but your experience is not even typical, let alone universal.

pimeys 13y ago
It is very complicated. I upgraded one of our apps from 2.3 to 3.2 recently. The nicest thing was that the app didn't have any views and even the controller layer was slim; we had only one! The update took around two weeks of time from two developers. The app is one of our core apps and runs very important tasks. Probably the best thing is to remove Rails completely from there.