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 22:48:25 GMT
Sorry, it's an accident to reply to the list.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harry Zhu" <>
To: "Jonathan" <>; "mod_perl List" 
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby

> ----- 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
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.0/275 - Release Date: 3/6/2006

View raw message