Re: [cgiapp] Ruby on Rails and CGI::Application

[David Naughton <suppressed>]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:50:57PM -0400, Michael Peters wrote:
> Owain wrote:
> >I read this post on Article on /.
> >http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/04/1520227&tid=156&tid=1
> >
> >which looked interesting since I am going to have a play with Ruby
> >(http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/20020101.html) and Ruby on Rails
> >(http://www.rubyonrails.com/) seems to fell rather similar to cgiapp in
> >a lot of senses.  I am "reading up" on Design Patterns and would like to
> >try out Ruby and this seems to be a good way to try.  Has anyone on the
> >list had a shot already and what are the main differences?
> 
> Rails is more of a framework than CGI::App. It think the perl equivalent 
> is Catalyst (which is based on Maypole). And from what I can tell 
> Catalyst is an awful lot like C::A but with more stuff.
> 
> For an intro on Catalyst... 
> http://search.cpan.org/~sri/Catalyst-4.34/lib/Catalyst/Manual/Intro.pod
> 
> Most of the stuff added to Catalyst aren't so much a part of the 
> application, but other stuff like a built in testing framework, testing 
> server, etc. The code looks a lot like CGI::App though.
 
Thanks for mentioning Catalyst. I wrote much of that Intro. :)

Sebastian Riedel, the Catalyst project leader, has been heavily
influenced by RoR, as well as other frameworks. He's not just imitating,
but also trying to avoid and/or fix problems he sees in other
frameworks, and of course implement his own ideas. For example, both RoR
and Maypole are focused on, if not limited to, a /class/method/args url
scheme. Catalyst is much more flexible OOTB, yet manages to remain
simple. For more, read the docs or ask the catalyst list:
suppressed

> >One problem I have already spotted is the likely difficulty of having
> >mod_ruby or ruby installed at an ISP good old Perl is ubiquitous.
> 
> I'm sure Rails is nice, but from what I've seen (I know, I know, I 
> should really try it out first hand) it doesn't do anything that can't 
> already be done with perl (Maypole, Catalyst, C::A w/TT and Class::DBI).
 
Yes. Perrin Harkins referred to RoR as "vastly overhyped", and I agree.
While both Ruby and RoR seem very nice, a lot of the hype seems to be
coming from Java programmers with a strong anti-Perl bias. I find that
ironic, since often the bias is nothing but the old "line noise"
complaint, which in Perl comes from sigils and regexes. But Ruby also
uses sigils, albeit differently, and even Java supports regexes.

Not only is Perl ubiquitous, but my co-workers and I already know it.
Also since, as Michael points out, there are many fine Perl frameworks similar
to RoR, I see little reason to switch.

--- 
> Michael Peters
> Developer
> Plus Three, LP

Dave

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/suppressed/
              http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suppressed
For additional commands, e-mail: suppressed