3 ms·

I wonder if that is due, in part, to the fact that there are so many web frameworks for Python (Django, TurboGears, Pylons, etc) that maybe we tend to discuss w

I wonder if that is due, in part, to the fact that there are so many web frameworks for Python (Django, TurboGears, Pylons, etc) that maybe we tend to discuss web frameworks in general a little more then the Rails guys. I'm sure there are some out there but I've never heard of any other web frameworks for Ruby.

bct 17y ago
Ruby has a lot of web frameworks too. All your experience means is that you don't pay much attention to Ruby (which is fine, I'm only vaguely aware of the 3 you listed for Python)
- subbu 17y ago
  How many of these are widely used in production? Merb was close. But now its part of Rails. Leaving these 2 there aren't any in the Ruby world. I see Sinatra blinking somewhere. But its far far away.
  - carbon8 17y ago
    Sinatra is widely used and becoming pretty ubiquitous. It's supplanting camping, which was also relatively widely used, but not nearly as much as sinatra. The Merb/Rails merge reveals some reasons why there aren't a lot of widely used Ruby frameworks, and I'd say it's mostly a large scale manifestation of DRY, combined with the maturity and wealth of features in the Rails codebase and the fact that most of the changes devs would like to see in Rails are already going into it.
  - ptomato 17y ago
    Ramaze would come somewhere after Sinatra, most likely, though it has mostly been used for intranet apps.
    - jamesbritt 17y ago
      How do you now this? How do you get the stats on what framework is in use?
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  See bottom of this page: http://wiki.ramaze.net/Home http://wiki.ramaze.net/Home
jamesbritt 17y ago
"I'm sure there are some out there but I've never heard of any other web frameworks for Ruby." Which is real shame, because there are many really good options for Ruby Web development. What people are saying here abut Rails I felt about Nitro, whihc came out at the same time but had a more well-considered implementation. It was thread-safe from the start, much faster than Rails, did less mucking around (if any) with core Ruby classes, made it easy to swap in different ORMs, offered a trnsformation pipeline that was simialr to Rack middleware; in fact, it seemed much like what Rails3 is going to be, only five years ago. But it got no traction in Rubyland. In fact, at one MountainWest RubyConf, Chad Fowler flat out told people to stop working on Nitro, because there was Rails. There's a weird myopia among many Rubyists, a lack of curiosity about what else is happening.

bct 17y ago

Ruby has a lot of web frameworks too. All your experience means is that you don't pay much attention to Ruby (which is fine, I'm only vaguely aware of the 3 you listed for Python)

subbu 17y ago
How many of these are widely used in production? Merb was close. But now its part of Rails. Leaving these 2 there aren't any in the Ruby world. I see Sinatra blinking somewhere. But its far far away.
- carbon8 17y ago
  Sinatra is widely used and becoming pretty ubiquitous. It's supplanting camping, which was also relatively widely used, but not nearly as much as sinatra. The Merb/Rails merge reveals some reasons why there aren't a lot of widely used Ruby frameworks, and I'd say it's mostly a large scale manifestation of DRY, combined with the maturity and wealth of features in the Rails codebase and the fact that most of the changes devs would like to see in Rails are already going into it.
- ptomato 17y ago
  Ramaze would come somewhere after Sinatra, most likely, though it has mostly been used for intranet apps.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    How do you now this? How do you get the stats on what framework is in use?
jamesbritt 17y ago
See bottom of this page: http://wiki.ramaze.net/Home http://wiki.ramaze.net/Home

jamesbritt 17y ago

"I'm sure there are some out there but I've never heard of any other web frameworks for Ruby." Which is real shame, because there are many really good options for Ruby Web development. What people are saying here abut Rails I felt about Nitro, whihc came out at the same time but had a more well-considered implementation. It was thread-safe from the start, much faster than Rails, did less mucking around (if any) with core Ruby classes, made it easy to swap in different ORMs, offered a trnsformation pipeline that was simialr to Rack middleware; in fact, it seemed much like what Rails3 is going to be, only five years ago. But it got no traction in Rubyland. In fact, at one MountainWest RubyConf, Chad Fowler flat out told people to stop working on Nitro, because there was Rails. There's a weird myopia among many Rubyists, a lack of curiosity about what else is happening.