InfoQ Article: Why Would a .NET Programmer Learn Ruby on Rails?

What about speed? I heard that Ruby isn't the fastest script language.

That's true. However, I don't think it's even an issue until someone develops a site in Ruby | Ruby on Rails that absolutely cannot scale further or perform fast enough. Once someone hits that wall, then it will be an issue worth addressing.

And yes, I do .NET by day and Ruby on Rails after hours. :)

www.almostserio.us/
www.castleproject.org/

I have also done Ruby on Rails by night and I liked it. If you don't need a enterprise application then it is a very good choice to think about.

How about the fact that Ruby and Rails are both open, so that you're not at the mercy of one vendor? How many times has Microsoft changed their web app platform now? There was ASP, then VB 6 WebClasses, then .Net. Each time they changed everything was supposed to be better, faster, easier, but it just ended up costing more time and money.

Hi There,

sometime soon, someone will be forced to publish some benchmark
results as compared to jAppServer2004(www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/).

Everyone knows that ruby is weak in threading and i18n. But for most customers, that is NOT a major concern.

Ruby/Rails might not work for 30-40% of customers for various reasons, but once ruby specification is firmed up(similar to .NET or JLS), then a Java implementation will likely be able to beat the C version within a year.

Extending existing JAVA/.NET applications will get easier using rails on .NET/JAVA implementations of Ruby.

Currently, deploying Rails applications seems strange to people who're used to deploying to a single appServer and little configuration work. Hopefully, with decent implementations in .NET/java, that will be a issue to be forgotten. With the amount of monitoring functionality in Glassfish/Java 5/Mustang, a rails application on Glassfish will be more popular than on, say Apache 2.x. With the noise of Java platform getting open sourced getting louder, deploying java based applications should become more easier.

BR,
~A

As a .Net programmer, I haven't seen anything that makes me want to learn Ruby, yet. While this list is interesting, everything on it has a .Net equivalent. Time will tell which wins out.

Do not compile.

Dynamically enhance the behavior of a class - without a Decorator.

Slim down your code base 10-20% by stripping off all type declarations and interface declarations.

Ajax it in no time.

With Rails, you don?t need an O/R Mapper.

Using Ruby script to build/deploy/release is better than using NAnt.

Like this article's author, I do .NET stuff for a living and Ruby stuff in my spare time. I've been doing .NET for 5 years, and admit that it has it's uses; but I'm not closeminded about other technologies.

As a .Net programmer, I haven't seen anything that makes me want to learn Ruby, yet. While this list is interesting, everything on it has a .Net equivalent. Time will tell which wins out.

Last I heard, C# 3 and VB 9 will have this.

Atlas for ASP.net (It is still in beta)

This will be handled by the LINQ functionality in C# 3 and VB 9. (It is still in preview)

MSBuild replaces NAnt. Though you don't need it for ASP.Net.

Jonathan,

You are exactly the kind of developer that the Rails community does not want. Keep defending .NET and stay the closed minded developer that you probably are. I have no doubts that you have invested a lot of time in .NET and struggled through the bad times. You probably have even come up with a proficient way to use/fight against the .NET framework to do anything productive.

Slim down your code base 10-20% by stripping off all type declarations and interface declarations.

I think that is a disadvantage. It makes it harder to determine what type is supposed to be passed by looking at the method signature. You also lose the ability to do some forms of static analysis.

Jonathan is a complete moron. Half the things he talks about are "coming". So therefore, .NET does NOT have an equivalent. Microsoft is always behind the mark on technology and apparently so are their developers.

Congrats to Nick Martini and Billy Billionaire for keeping this fascist in check.

Rex Rexroth

Jonathan is not a fascist. He's just a normal Microsoft-focused developer. That's completely normal behavior for customers that have only one vendor, one source of technology, one source of concepts and ideas. For example, replace nant with MSBuild? Why didn't Microsoft just adopt nant? (And why do they still use "make" internally? ;-)

Don't expect plebs to think on their own. That's too much, too quickly. Openness, democracy, transparency, independence -- these things take at least a generation to instill.

Peace,

Cameron Purdy
Tangosol Coherence: Clustered Shared Memory for Java

The whole point of this article is to convince .Net programmers that they should try Ruby. As a typical .Net programmer, I was just saying those particular reasons were not interesting to me.

Instead of giving me other reason's why Ruby might be of interest, you call me a moron and a fascist. That is not the way to win over people.

Is this going to be the culture of Ruby? Is hatred of all things Microsoft your definition of openness and free thinking? Do you treat Java programmers the same way?

There is no reason to insult people just because they bought their hammer from a different company than you.

I do not think Jonathan deserves any of the opinions he drew here. I was in fact just like him a few months ago, doing most of my programming in the .NET world. This 1,000-word article merely touches anything to convince .NET programmers to try Ruby. I only wrote about 5 or 6 points of interests I personally find interesting in my due course of learning Ruby/Rails. Now when I look back, I probably have accumulated way more than 50 points of interests:

+ How is a web framework without using event-driven model implemented/work?
+ How does a framework that supports database continuous integration work? You can rollback the state of your database in development to a certain point in time by using migration. How?
+ How far can code generation get you?
+ You do not have the ability to overload a method in Ruby - yes - the what?
+ You can easily reopen classes of the framework to override almost anything you want. Remember the pain of creating wrapper interfaces/classes that wraps .NET Framework's sealed classes?
+ There is no such concept as abstract base class. All classes are concrete. So do you still need those factory patterns?
+ Dependency injection becomes easy now that you can reopen classes, so would you still need to prefer constructor-injection over anything else?
+ Everything is an object: including a class. Class methods are instance methods of a class. A whole new dimension of thinking about what kind of behaviors should or could go in there.
+ Since everything is an object, including integers, strings, and any custom value objects you create, is the Null Object pattern still needed?
+ You can at run time evaluate Ruby code stored as a string very easily, without rolling your own parser. That is the fundamental of creating a DSL (domain specific language). Everyone is creating (or if you agree, programming) complicated Excel spreadsheets, using Excel syntax. How about create a DSL that the business is familiar with to aid their everyday task?
+ And the coolest of all, turn a Mac into a Star Wars Jedi weapon...

Like many things in life, until you have a second option, you always believe what you know is surely the best ever. All of the above are cool ideas, and many of which I will consider bringing them from the Ruby/Rails world to my future .NET projects. It does not have to be "pick .NET or Ruby" at all.

I honestly think you guys are the ones that are biased. Jonathan just sounds like he likes the tools he knows and doesn't see any reason to switch.

Is hatred of all things Microsoft your definition of openness and free thinking?

Do you treat Java programmers the same way?

If any of these latter comments are aimed at me, I'd suggest re-reading my comment; at no point in it did I suggest Jonathan was a complete moron. He obviously isn't, since he is familiar enough with .NET to bring up his points.

No, but someone else did merely because I am willing to wait for MS to provide some things that Ruby already has.

Do not compile.

ASP.Net has that now.

Dynamically enhance the behavior of a class - without a Decorator.

Last I heard, C# 3 and VB 9 will have this.

Slim down your code base 10-20% by stripping off all type declarations and interface declarations.

I think that is a disadvantage. It makes it harder to determine what type is supposed to be passed by looking at the method signature. You also lose the ability to do some forms of static analysis.

public String sendMessage(String s1, String s2, String s3) { /* do stuff */ }

Ajax it in no time.

Atlas for ASP.net (It is still in beta)

With Rails, you don't need an O/R Mapper.

This will be handled by the LINQ functionality in C# 3 and VB 9. (It is still in preview)

Using Ruby script to build/deploy/release is better than using NAnt.

MSBuild replaces NAnt. Though you don't need it for ASP.Net.

The thing is, moving to Ruby is too expensive for me right now. The cost in learning time doesn't cover the productivity gain at this time. Ruby really needs some killer features that MS isn't going to offer if you want me to use it as my production language.

The thing is, moving to Ruby is too expensive for me right now. The cost in learning time doesn't cover the productivity gain at this time.

Guys, I'd like to ask you to please be respectful. InfoQ is a serious site for serioes discussion. Putting out one's opinion respectfully is ok but resorting to name calling is not.

Floyd
InfoQ Co-founder

Thanks Floyd, and nicely handled. Hey, didn't I meet you at Canada on Rails? I of course remember you from years before, but I'm not sure what site(s).

It would appear that the jihad flame wars will NEVER end on languages, OSes and machines (even browsers!) Even if Jonathan had been trashing Ruby/Rails, which I don't see based on his comments, who cares? It's his right. I think he was trying to see the potential of something new/different and probably has much vested in his current situation. Totally understandable, his trepidation. I'm in the Java world but rapidly moving towards Rails. Give up Java completely? At my own peril.....for now.

I see a connection between Rails people and Mac people; and make no mistake, OSX is the development platform of choice. It was mind-blowing how many Macs there were at Canada on Rails. In the DeRailed group (Denver Rails) I'm the only one of probably 20 or 25 guys who bring laptops, that actually has a PC.

Oh yeah, Rails->Mac connection. It's always been amazing how fierce the Mac-heads have been to defend their [previously] undersupported platform. Personally, while I've always liked the Mac interface pretty much, it was always a nightmare to develop on; until OSX. I still don't plan to switch over anytime soon but I can understand why people like a real UNIX-backed, aesthetically superior (especially to Linux!) machine.

Oh, yeah, the connection. :-/ I see so many similarities in behavior with the Rails-heads, a group of which I would say I'm moderately connected. Fierce defenders with an attitude, and definite arrogance. This is not all bad, in fact I totally admire the passion! But I could see how the extreme "join-us-or-die!" approach will certainly turn off some would-be seekers who are genuinely interested in exploring to find the best tools for the job! While DHH's "F*** YOU!" rant was in some ways amusing (I still have the mp3 recording) it's not going to score many points outside of the counter-culture groups, especially not serious business people.

Mr. Chu has it completely right: "best *business* value for his clients." I think many developers actually believe the drill is more important than the hole that it creates. I know it's tempting to get caught up in the technology itself, but what's really important in life???? I'd say the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness deal was a pretty good start.....love your neighbor wasn't bad either. :)

Floyd, of course, TheServerSide! And I probably encountered your Design Pattern book as well.

Greg.
("oh by the way, which one's Pink?")

Agreed. I think the Ruby community should seek to distinguish itelf through technical excellence and results, not through aggression. Then they will be a cultural draw that could be quite compelling, like Java was back in the early days.

I find it is interesting to learn Ruby on Rails. I am working in .NET now.
But how can I install this without affecting my current dev environment. I don't want to install Apache server or MySql on my machine? Any help?

I find it is interesting to learn Ruby on Rails. I am working in .NET now.
But how can I install this without affecting my current dev environment. I don't want to install Apache server or MySql on my machine? Any help?

The thing is, moving to Ruby is too expensive for me right now. The cost in learning time doesn't cover the productivity gain at this time. Ruby really needs some killer features that MS isn't going to offer if you want me to use it as my production language.

I'm a .NET experienced developer myself and I'm open to new technologies. Could anyone point out some good training resources and the tools needed to start working with RoR? What's the best IDE to use?

twitter.com/ducu

I highly recommend the tutororials from: www.buildingwebapps.com/

"Do not compile."
--Think Speed! Think Compiled Programming Languages. Ruby din't yet beat the speed for C,C++, or even Java (Slowest of the lot) And It is lot more easy to code in C, because I know it more than 10 years now. And I can't think anything I can't do in C that I need Ruby for. So No I am not learning Ruby anytime soon unless my boss wants me.

"Dynamically enhance the behavior of a class - without a Decorator."
--- This is perfectly pole apart from what we understand for OOP. Think of a Dog starting to fly suddenly because you added the behavior dynamically. C++/Java allows something called Operator Overloading. Using that you can transform one object to another. When you add a new behavior to your already existing class, Dude, that's a different class altogether. To understand more, please read www.consulttoday.com/Metamorphosis1.pdf

You compared "Decorator" pattern with "Dynamic" behavior addition capabilities. Which are as different as "Saw" and "Hammer". The first one allows you to create an illusion of a single object (which is actually made up with several others. That's decorating). The later however is a fantasy and insane approach.



Slim down your code base 10-20% by stripping off all type declarations and interface declarations.
--- First off, getting the type out of any declaration is a highway to type-unsafe programming. A programming language has to be highly predictable. In order to be predictable it needs type checking. This type checking is not there in Ruby. Errors can be enormous. I can easily break any ruby code as a client programmer. Just imagine a method that takes 1 integer and 2 double values in order and I passed 1 string and 2 integers. How the hell the method would know what's going on?

Ajax it in no time.
-- Ajax Control Toolkit of .NET is far more better and well supported.

With Rails, you don’t need an O/R Mapper.
--- Neither you do in .NET Do you know about DatabaseProviders? DataNavigator and DataBinder controls?

Using Ruby script to build/deploy/release is better than using NAnt.
-- With .NET MSI, InstallShield 11 can you match Ruby's Rake? I don't think so.

With all these reasons, I am not learning Ruby anytime soon..
Also if you want to see why I don't like Ruby visit my blog at oopboy.blogspot.com/

Long Live C,C++,C#,Java,VB.NET,Perl,Python

So do think Hulu.com does not scale? Or is slow? Hulu rolls on rails, which is now a day job...