couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikeal Rogers <>
Subject Re: What's wrong with Ruby libraries for CouchDB?
Date Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:32:33 GMT
I'll try to respond to each of these in a new blog post because a lot of
what you say isn't specific to Ruby.

Some of the underlying reasons for your complaints, which I think are valid,
are actually due to some of the better parts of CouchDB being too easy :)


On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Karel Minařík <>wrote:

> Hi all,
> during the last year, I have been working on and off on couple of Ruby
> contracts/projects using CouchDB as the primary database.
> Encountering Couch was probably the _most_ joyful experience in the
> "developer" part of my life, during that year, *period*.
> _Working_ with Couch in Ruby/Rails apps was _highly frustrating_ experience
> during that time.
> I have summarized some of the issues I had/have in the following gist:
> -->
> The points include "too many gems", "too many layers", "lack of
> modularization" and "talking to the rest of Ruby world". I've put them in
> the gist and not on this list mainly because I don't know if all people
> interested are subscribed to this list. I welcome any feedback here, but
> _rather_ in comments to the gist.
> One thing I'd propose is some virtual (or real) get together of authors of
> various Ruby gems for Couch to consider if there's not some common ground,
> and if the features of different libraries could not be catered in a
> radically smaller number of gems.
> Regarding the (natural) "one size does not fit all" argument: the situation
> reminds of the state of i18n in Ruby on Rails two years ago. There were
> number of options for providing the functionality, because "everybody has
> different needs". This has put a really _big_ strain on developers, forcing
> them to research and evaluate all the options and make the choices. In the
> end, thanks to coordinated effort, common ground was found and a modular,
> but "out of the box" usable solution was created:
> I think adoption rate, and more importantly _joy_, of using Couch in Ruby
> would benefit from something similar.
> Best,
> Karel
> --

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message