6 ms·

I wonder why people keep picking on .net/java with this kinds of assumptions. Isn't GitHub running Rails 2.3 or something? Why just 'attack' the .net/java stack

by BSousa 13y ago

I wonder why people keep picking on .net/java with this kinds of assumptions. Isn't GitHub running Rails 2.3 or something? Why just 'attack' the .net/java stacks?

iagooar 13y ago
As far as I know, Github also uses their own Ruby fork and have build an asset pipeline on top of their current system. I don't think that the reason why they don't upgrade is because it's too hard. It's just that their current system works fine as is. On the other hand, I have upgraded dozens of Rails apps from 2.3 to 3.0, from 3.0 to 3.1 and 3.2 to 4.0. Sometimes it was extremely easy, sometimes it required a little bit more effort, but I would not consider it as being difficult or painful.
- Arnor 13y ago
  My first Rails project was 2.3 -> 3.2 (with intermediary steps if I recall). It took me a couple weeks, and I ascribed most of that to how unfamiliar I was with the stack at the time. Since then, I've become rather candid in my opinion that Rails upgrades are rather trivial. Do you know of any specific red flags that would indicate a more painful upgrade process?
  - iagooar 13y ago
    Well, the most difficult project I had to upgrade was a 2.3 project with a custom Asset Pipeline, with some additional features that Sprockets do not support. Sometimes the upgrading problems arise due to gem dependencies, as a lot of gems set hard constraints on other gems' versions so it can be a little tricky to update everything at once. All the other upgrades where rather easy, but of course it depends heavily on the size of the project, the test coverage or the underlying server infrastructure.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    2.3 -> 3.0 was the worst transition. Ever since then, we've been taking steps to make upgrades even more trivial. 4.0 -> 4.1 is almost drop-in, for comparison.
bmj 13y ago
I wasn't "attacking" .NET/Java stacks (I'm a .NET developer who has to maintain a .NET 2.0 code base). I was just wondering if the teams that use CoffeeScript, Node, Grunt, etc. tend to adopt bleeding edge stacks, and therefore, will have constantly evolving stacks for their products. I also wonder if Rails is more analogous to say, the LAMP stack (I'm not directly comparing Ruby to PHP, mind you)?
steveklabnik 13y ago
dotcom is running 2.3, but my understanding (I don't work at GitHub) is that they're very, very SOA, and use quite a bit of Sinatra.

by BSousa 13y ago

I wonder why people keep picking on .net/java with this kinds of assumptions. Isn't GitHub running Rails 2.3 or something? Why just 'attack' the .net/java stacks?

iagooar 13y ago

As far as I know, Github also uses their own Ruby fork and have build an asset pipeline on top of their current system. I don't think that the reason why they don't upgrade is because it's too hard. It's just that their current system works fine as is. On the other hand, I have upgraded dozens of Rails apps from 2.3 to 3.0, from 3.0 to 3.1 and 3.2 to 4.0. Sometimes it was extremely easy, sometimes it required a little bit more effort, but I would not consider it as being difficult or painful.

Arnor 13y ago
My first Rails project was 2.3 -> 3.2 (with intermediary steps if I recall). It took me a couple weeks, and I ascribed most of that to how unfamiliar I was with the stack at the time. Since then, I've become rather candid in my opinion that Rails upgrades are rather trivial. Do you know of any specific red flags that would indicate a more painful upgrade process?
- iagooar 13y ago
  Well, the most difficult project I had to upgrade was a 2.3 project with a custom Asset Pipeline, with some additional features that Sprockets do not support. Sometimes the upgrading problems arise due to gem dependencies, as a lot of gems set hard constraints on other gems' versions so it can be a little tricky to update everything at once. All the other upgrades where rather easy, but of course it depends heavily on the size of the project, the test coverage or the underlying server infrastructure.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  2.3 -> 3.0 was the worst transition. Ever since then, we've been taking steps to make upgrades even more trivial. 4.0 -> 4.1 is almost drop-in, for comparison.

bmj 13y ago

I wasn't "attacking" .NET/Java stacks (I'm a .NET developer who has to maintain a .NET 2.0 code base). I was just wondering if the teams that use CoffeeScript, Node, Grunt, etc. tend to adopt bleeding edge stacks, and therefore, will have constantly evolving stacks for their products. I also wonder if Rails is more analogous to say, the LAMP stack (I'm not directly comparing Ruby to PHP, mind you)?

steveklabnik 13y ago

dotcom is running 2.3, but my understanding (I don't work at GitHub) is that they're very, very SOA, and use quite a bit of Sinatra.