InfoQ

InfoQ

News

My Bookmarks

Login or Register to enable bookmarks for unlimited time.

The content has been bookmarked!

There was an error bookmarking this content! Please retry.

Ruby and the hype cycle

Posted by Werner Schuster on Oct 08, 2007

Sections
Development,
Architecture & Design
Topics
Stories & Case Studies ,
Ruby ,
Performance & Scalability ,
Ruby on Rails
A recent blog entry about the failure of a Rails based project caused a storm of controversy. Predictably, the side of the debate with stakes in competing technologies saw this as sign of the demise of Rails - particularly as the post talks at length about switching back to PHP. However, some took a closer look at what was actually said in the post. Austin Ziegler points out a few non-technological related problems that broke the project's back:
He ignored his existing experts for the new technology. Neither he nor his employees knew Ruby aside, perhaps, from playing around with it. This wasn’t a technology that was deemed to be appropriate from experience; this was a technology deemed appropriate by management (sorry Derek, you might still be getting your hands dirty with code, but you’re still management).
This points to the fact that the company's software was fully PHP based, with all developers doing PHP development. A software company completely invested in PHP rewriting a big piece of software in Ruby on Rails does raise questions. Particularly, as the original post clearly states that there was only one full time Rails developer plus the writer of the blog entry, who states he's much more comfortable with the PHP environment, while the rest of the developers and the software of the company stayed with PHP.

Another problem Austin brings up is that the project was a rewrite of existing software.
Derek approached the project as a whole-environment ground-up rewrite with a One Big Day deployment, without considering ways to phase it in over time. It’s almost always possible to find interface points where you can replace one broken piece at a time. Ultimately, this is what the Rails folks wouldshould tell you anyway: replace one area at a time, each with a different codebase. Interface them as REST-ful services. Don’t make them depend on a single database schema.
This has been brought up by many. David Heinemeier Hansson points to an article series "The Big Rewrite" by Chad Fowler detailing problems with project rewrites.

The hype cycle is also brought up in this debate. The hype cycle is an idea for describing the process with which products or technologies make a splash in the market. The speedy rise of Rails indicates that hype was one factor it achieved it's current popularity and mindshare so quickly. This is an approach it shares with many technologies, such as Java, XML or venerable AJAX.

One stage of the hype cycle comes after expectations in the technology peak - which is followed by the Trough of Disillusionment. This is the point when real use of the technologies has uncovered some problems or dispelled some myths. It also comes after the period Peak of Inflated Expectations, in which some adopters might believe the technology to be a silver bullet, fit to solve all problems. Raised expectations might explain the fact that a PHP-only shop considered rewriting part of their software with Rails.

While some suggest this to be bad for Ruby, history shows that other technologies went through these same stages. Java, for instance,  experienced this stage long ago when big public projects such as Corel Office for Java project failed in the late 90's or the cancellation of Netscape's Javagator, a rewrite of Netscape Navigator in Java.

Some interpret this recent debate as the backlash for Ruby, although that seems a bit late. Earlier this year, a bigger, more public Ruby based project seemed close to failure. Twitter, a messaging system, built on Ruby, experienced serious performance troubles. A remark that the performance of the Ruby interpreter might be at fault for this, caused a big stir and raised concerns about Ruby.

Now, 6 months later, things look different however. Case in point: Twitter is still up and running, has shed its performance issues, and is still implemented in Ruby. The solutions to fix the problems are now documented to everyone around the net, for instance in slide sets of talks "Scaling Twitter" or "A Small Talk On Getting Big. On the whole, the problems turned out to be architectural.
Rails's future cast in concrete by Steven Devijver Posted
Re: Rails's future cast in concrete by Robert Hicks Posted
Ignoring technology mapping by Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz Posted
Re: Ignoring technology mapping by Julian Browne Posted
Using proven technology... by Hank Roark Posted
"Twitter is up and running" by Joe Grossberg Posted
real problem for RoR is that it's obsolete technology by Roger Voss Posted
  1. Back to top

    Rails's future cast in concrete

    by Steven Devijver

    Rails is an enormous success no matter how you look at it. It caught on big, it opened people's eyes and responses to rails have driven a lot of change.

    There's no indication or reason to believe rails will disappear, regardless the hype.

  2. Back to top

    Ignoring technology mapping

    by Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz

    The main problem with that guy was that he made a technology choice (rails) but didn't follow the constraints and architectural recipes the technology favors such as ActiveRecord versus extensive SQL usaage which he favored

    I wrote about it in Warning! Technology Mapping has Implications

  3. Back to top

    Re: Rails's future cast in concrete

    by Robert Hicks

    No it won't go away and that is a good thing. It is a good thing that it makes people "think". I do think Rails will be a "niche" thing but I say that in the best possible sense.

  4. Back to top

    Re: Ignoring technology mapping

    by Julian Browne

    I got into some protracted email debates about that post when it came out. To be fair to the guy who wrote it, his rationale for the final decisions were pretty sound (although a bit late in the day I must say). But none of his reasons equate to saying ruby-is-no-good, just not right for his particular needs, and with his clear love and base of PHP/SQL I could have told him that before he started.

  5. Back to top

    Using proven technology...

    by Hank Roark

    I found the blog entry interesting in that I think you could have replaced Ruby (and Rails, a framework) and PHP with any two programming languages and a framework.

    In _The Toyota Way_, there are 14 management practices espoused. Number eight is "Use only proven technology that serves your people and your processes." Proven means proven to you and your people, not the general world. Seems like the move to a new technology (in this case, RR) violates this practice with the expected results.

  6. Back to top

    "Twitter is up and running"

    by Joe Grossberg

    Sometimes, they are.

    I don't even know if they've got "two nines" of uptime, despite all the improvements.

  7. Back to top

    real problem for RoR is that it's obsolete technology

    by Roger Voss

    There's really a much more serious problem for RoR - it's obsolete technology.

    Flex RIA client-tier coupled to services middle-tier is rendering the approach of the middle-tier web frameworks - of all stripes - irrelevant.

    There's a new generation of a RIA web that is being tooled right now that is way cooler than what's been built by the likes of RoR.

    There is nothing about RoR that every caused me to have excitement about the web and the Internet. Now, however, Flex - and the new breed of apps emerging on it - have brought excitement back to the web, as it makes possible a whole new approach to the web experience.

    RoR amounted to nothing more than a (presumably) speedier way to craft the same old web crap experience. It was something of interest to boutique web site development shops that used it for bidding leverage on bottom feeder contracting jobs.

Educational Content

New-age Transactional Systems - Not Your Grandpa's OLTP

John Hugg discusses high volume transaction processing applications with high and low frequency profiles, and how VoltDB can be used for that purpose.

Cool Code

Kevlin Henney examines code samples to see what can be learned from them starting from the premise that one won’t write great code unless he knows how to read it.

Collaboration: At the Extremities of Extreme

Jason Ayers share the observations he made watching a team of developers collaborating in real time on the same code base, pushing XP, pair programming and continuous integration to their extremes.

Yesod Web Framework

Michael Snoyman presents Yesod, a web framework written in Haskell and containing a web server, templating, ORM, libraries (templating, gravatar, etc.).

Transactions without Transactions

Richard Kreuter and Kyle Banker on how to avoid classical RDBMS transactional systems by using compensation mechanisms, transactional messaging or transactional procedures.

Attila Szegedi on JVM and GC Performance Tuning at Twitter

Attila Szegedi talks about performance tuning Java and Scala programs at Twitter: how to approach GC problems, the importance of asynchronous I/O, when to use MySQL/Cassandra/Redis, and much more.

10 tips on how to prevent business value risk

One category of risk that project teams need to ensure they address is business value failure – delivering a product that fails to provide value for the business investor.

Interview: Software Systems Architecture: Working With Stakeholders Using Viewpoints and Perspectives

InfoQ spoke to the authors of Software Systems Architecture on a couple of new topics, the System Context viewpoint and Agile, which have been added to the second edition.