perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Harry Zhu" <>
Subject Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby
Date Mon, 06 Mar 2006 22:41:14 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan" <>
To: "mod_perl List" <>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby

> there's been a popular link critiquing rails floating around
> personally, I hate rails.   i'm seeing a lot of colleagues adopt it,  
> with a combination of this reasoning:
> it 'sucks less than php' ( from someone with a php book )
> its perfect for doing small sites regardless of traffic
> remember, there are 2 types of scaling :
> a- lots of users / content
> b- lots of hits
> rails can scale on b reasonably well behind lighty w/fcgi.  just  
> loadbalance and toss server after server into a cluster.
> the bulk of its use is design shop stuff
> but all my colleagues/friends work for design shops
> not to knock rails, but the biggest project they've been implemented  
> with , as far as i can tell, is odeo. lots of other projects are done  
> in it, but none that scale in use and content like that one, and it  
> doesn't really impress me.  there could  be something else out there,  
> but i've yet to see it.  all the projects i've seen done on it are  
> blogs, small sharing apps, design agency stuff, etc.  it does that  
> stuff really well and really fast, but there's no breadth to it.   
> AFAIK the big blog implementation service that touts rails is run as  
> multiple installations each behind their own lighty instance with  
> fcgi support.
> this fall, I quit my FT job to start an online sharing / syndication  
> service that will hopefully go live within the month.
> i evaluated a ton of frameworks and languages, here's how i felt:
> ruby - rails was getting all the hype. i tried rails and had a  
> webapp running in minutes.  it was a sheer pleasure as promised.   
> except rails couldn't do what i wanted to do for my project.  it was  
> way to strict. its made for building a certain type of application -  
> not every application.
> c - would have been the fastest to run and scale the best.   
> nightmare to write.
> php - i found it a nightmare to maintain code and enforce MVC, and i  
> intensely dislike the model of everything essentially being a cgi  
> script.  i wanted everything compiled into the server, as i'm running  
> a single service, not 20 differentn projects for 20 clients like I  
> managed at my old design agency.
> python - the spec on the  twisted framework kept changing.  django  
> was too Rail's-ish in scope.  turbogears didn't exist yet, but also a  
> bit too rails-ish for me.
> perl - i don't like template toolkit or mason.  i know many do.  i  
> just don't.  they're both very perlish in the templates.  catalyst  
> wasn't really around yet - maypole was, but also too rails ish.
> i ended up building my own MVC 'framework' under mp2.  i get all the  
> speed and server integration that I wanted.   i'm tossing framework  
> in quotes, because everything is too built-into my app.  i'd love to  
> pull it out and release it, but its not there yet.  it basically just  
> does url dispatching to perl modules + session control in a  
> standardized manner, and has an abstracted api for content  
> rendering.    all html pages are written TAL, because I  use python  
> to prototype objects and methods and handle admin tasks.  this lets  
> me use the same exact templates for prototyping.    one might  think  
> that perl or ruby is fast/easy to write - well (for me)python is a  
> fraction of it -- and program/test in python than port to mod_perl is  
> way faster (again for me than ) doing everything in mod_perl.
> i think the reasons why rails gets so much hype are this:
> it makes building a certain type of project easy.  those projects  
> are 'popular' as are the companies building them.  so when people  
> talk about it, others listen.
> its gaining a lot of ground w/newcomers to web building, as its easy  
> and intuitive.  so more people talk about it.
> it converts a lot of people from .NET or java, who hear the hype and  
> give it a shot.  truth be told, they find it a dream.  who wouldn't  
> after that conversion?
> so depending on what  you're building, RoR may be the best framework  
> for you, or a complete nightmare.  its certainly not the jack-of-all- 
> trades, and neither is catalyst.  using any framework or language,  
> your milage WILL vary compared to others.
> On Feb 25, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Mark Galbreath wrote:
>> which then begs the question, why RoR and not Catalyst?
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006

View raw message