4 ms·

37signals actually does not control Rails. There's no vendor behind it that stands to (directly) make money if more people adopt it. One thing to remember abo

by pius 19y ago

37signals actually does not control Rails. There's no vendor behind it that stands to (directly) make money if more people adopt it. One thing to remember about Rails was the context in which it was conceived. Rails was not designed as a framework; rather, it was extracted from a real project as a useful skeleton. It is "opinionated software" conceived and publicized as a reaction to the bloated frameworks in the Java world. Edge cases are pushed out into plugins, features generally have to be rejected several times before they make it into core, etc.

Tichy 19y ago
Of course they control Rails. Or are you telling me that I could this very minute submit some patch to Rails and announce that Rails 3.0 is out? I don't think so. I don't deny that they might be different in orientation. But which one is a better bet, the one that tries to anticipate all your needs and make you happy (Spring), or the one that only cares for the needs of it's developers? Not saying either way - bloat might be a problem for some, but Spring is very modular, you can only use parts if you want to. Spring earns more money if more people adapt it, so they try to make it as good as possible. What is the incentive for Rails, I don't know? Economically, their incentive would have to be to get their competition in trouble, to their own benefit? Perhaps they don't even use Rails internally ;-) Actually Spring also grew out of frustration and personal need, it was a result of Rod Johnson's experiences as consultant, if I remember correctly.
- maurycy 19y ago
  You can always create OpenRails, just like OpenBSD guys did with OpenSSH.
  - Tichy 19y ago
    You can do the same with Spring. For example, Groovy on Grails is also based on Spring.
- pius 19y ago
  Of course they control Rails. Or are you telling me that I could this very minute submit some patch to Rails and announce that Rails 3.0 is out? I don't think so. 37signals does not control Rails, these guys do: http://www.rubyonrails.org/core http://www.rubyonrails.org/core This is a group of developers that you could become a part of if you were so inclined (the usual petty open source politics notwithstanding). This is markedly different from having a commercial vendor in control of the product.
  - Tichy 19y ago
    I don't think they would just let anybody in. On the other hand, SpringSource probably wouldn't reject your free contributions to Spring either, if they are useful.
- pius 19y ago
  But which one is a better bet, the one that tries to anticipate all your needs and make you happy (Spring), or the one that only cares for the needs of it's developers? I'm a developer with needs and desires that align with the goals of Rails, so I prefer Rails. In addition, I've got no interest in using Java for developing web applications, so that plays into it as well. The beautiful truth is that no one is forcing anyone to use any of these projects. I am just happy to be making software at a time where there are so many frameworks and tools whose developers not only make their work available for free, but welcome my contributions if I'd like to put in the time.
  - Tichy 19y ago
    Sure, I am not saying one should use the one or the other. I just think it is a major reason many people stick to Java. Essentially, using Ruby on Rails carries the risk that your project might eventually steer into territory outside of 37signals interests, and you get stuck (or have to invest into developing Rails). With java, usually all use cases are covered (except for closures).
    - pius 19y ago
      Hmm, if you say so. :)
      - Tichy 19y ago
        Well at least it feels like that for me. I'd like to use something else than Java, but so far I haven't found anything that doesn't seem too risky. It probably also depends on the situation how much risk a person or company is willing to take.

by pius 19y ago

Tichy 19y ago

Of course they control Rails. Or are you telling me that I could this very minute submit some patch to Rails and announce that Rails 3.0 is out? I don't think so. I don't deny that they might be different in orientation. But which one is a better bet, the one that tries to anticipate all your needs and make you happy (Spring), or the one that only cares for the needs of it's developers? Not saying either way - bloat might be a problem for some, but Spring is very modular, you can only use parts if you want to. Spring earns more money if more people adapt it, so they try to make it as good as possible. What is the incentive for Rails, I don't know? Economically, their incentive would have to be to get their competition in trouble, to their own benefit? Perhaps they don't even use Rails internally ;-) Actually Spring also grew out of frustration and personal need, it was a result of Rod Johnson's experiences as consultant, if I remember correctly.

maurycy 19y ago
You can always create OpenRails, just like OpenBSD guys did with OpenSSH.
- Tichy 19y ago
  You can do the same with Spring. For example, Groovy on Grails is also based on Spring.
pius 19y ago
Of course they control Rails. Or are you telling me that I could this very minute submit some patch to Rails and announce that Rails 3.0 is out? I don't think so. 37signals does not control Rails, these guys do: http://www.rubyonrails.org/core http://www.rubyonrails.org/core This is a group of developers that you could become a part of if you were so inclined (the usual petty open source politics notwithstanding). This is markedly different from having a commercial vendor in control of the product.
- Tichy 19y ago
  I don't think they would just let anybody in. On the other hand, SpringSource probably wouldn't reject your free contributions to Spring either, if they are useful.
pius 19y ago
But which one is a better bet, the one that tries to anticipate all your needs and make you happy (Spring), or the one that only cares for the needs of it's developers? I'm a developer with needs and desires that align with the goals of Rails, so I prefer Rails. In addition, I've got no interest in using Java for developing web applications, so that plays into it as well. The beautiful truth is that no one is forcing anyone to use any of these projects. I am just happy to be making software at a time where there are so many frameworks and tools whose developers not only make their work available for free, but welcome my contributions if I'd like to put in the time.
- Tichy 19y ago
  Sure, I am not saying one should use the one or the other. I just think it is a major reason many people stick to Java. Essentially, using Ruby on Rails carries the risk that your project might eventually steer into territory outside of 37signals interests, and you get stuck (or have to invest into developing Rails). With java, usually all use cases are covered (except for closures).
  - pius 19y ago
    Hmm, if you say so. :)
    - Tichy 19y ago
      Well at least it feels like that for me. I'd like to use something else than Java, but so far I haven't found anything that doesn't seem too risky. It probably also depends on the situation how much risk a person or company is willing to take.