On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Greg Donald <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Mark Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> Rails is a mature framework > > No, it's not. > > How can you say something like that after everything that's changed > from 2.2 -> 2.3 ? Or knowing what's likely to change with 3.0 when > more of Merb gets merged in? > > When I read things like "middleware layers being completely rewritten" > it leads me to question why they were written so incorrectly to start > with that they needed to be completely rewritten. When I read things > like "memory sessions have been removed" I gotta wonder who thought > they were a good idea to start with? Newsflash: some of use were > using those. (Yes I'm aware of how to get them back using the plugin, > that's not the point.) If you're gonna put something in there, have a > good reason for putting it in there, have a reason so good that you > won't later find an opposing reason strong enough to remove it. > > The Rails API and docs change constantly and are often out of sync. > Last month for example, api.rubyonrails.com was showing new 2.3 > features before 2.3 was even released. How'd you like to be a new guy > scratching his head over grouped_options_for_select being in the docs > but not in the framework? I could much more easily accept the reverse > case. > > And what about the gem servers that are constantly up and down? How > can newcomers have any faith in Rail's maturity when you can't even > install it sometimes? > > And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast > that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now. I > have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day. >
I certainly agree with a few of your points, but you can't compare a language with a framework. Ruby, the language, hasn't changed that much from 1.8.x to 1.9.x. So, the original Ruby book is still usable. You could, though, compare Rails with a framework like Grails, which is much younger and more stable in the sense that it does not change as often as Rails. Probably, with Rails 3 we shall see some stability in the code, and some speed improvements: I was actually surprised to learn that Rails runs much faster with the JRuby interpreter when compared to the C version of the interpreter. I really love Ruby and Rails, but I still think that they need to improve quite a bit. The interpreter may have improved already with version 1.9, but Rails will only be considered api stable after version 3.0, because right now, like you say, the books can't keep up with the framework itself. If you look at the number of Grails books out there, they are still usable, and if there are some changes, aren't that major. You can always find the solution on their website. Those are my 2 cents. Fidel. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
