I don't know about you guys, but I'm starting to be overwhelmed by the recent proliferation of web frameworks for ruby. I mean, this is really cool and all, but there's a point at which it becomes difficult to digest everything. I sometimes feel, after learning how to use one of them, as if I've just bought the latest and greatest gadget, only to learn that the Joneses already bought next year's model 
Carl
Ahhh... choice... choice... so much choice...
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kirillcool/archive/2005/01/open_source_the.html
This anarchy cannot be tolerated any longer:
Cheers
On Jan 13, 2005, at 16:42, Carl Youngblood wrote:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm starting to be overwhelmed by the recent proliferation of web frameworks for ruby. I mean, this is really cool and all, but there's a point at which it becomes difficult to digest everything. I sometimes feel, after learning how to use one of them, as if I've just bought the latest and greatest gadget, only to learn that the Joneses already bought next year's model
I don't know about you guys, but I'm starting to be overwhelmed by
the
...
learn that the Joneses already bought next year's model
well choice is a good thing, they say 
George.
Carl Youngblood wrote:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm starting to be overwhelmed by
the
recent proliferation of web frameworks for ruby. I mean, this is
really
cool and all, but there's a point at which it becomes difficult to
digest everything. I sometimes feel, after learning how to use one
of
them, as if I've just bought the latest and greatest gadget, only to
learn that the Joneses already bought next year's modelCarl
Ok, now that I've figured out (again) how to include the original text
in a reply via Google Groups...
Designing a web framework seems to be one of those itches than many
programmers feel compelled to scratch. It happens in every language.
Dan
Open Source Development moves very slowly, but on a very broad front.
However, once one project proves itself to be superior, then it can gather an avalanche of momentum.
This proliferation is A Good Thing.
So is the massive weeding out and discarding of these projects as one or two of them prove themselves.
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
"The notes I handle no better than many pianists. But the pauses
between the notes -
ah, that is where the art resides!' - Artur Schnabel
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Carl Youngblood wrote:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm starting to be overwhelmed by the recent proliferation of web frameworks for ruby. I mean, this is really cool and all, but there's a point at which it becomes difficult to digest everything. I sometimes feel, after learning how to use one of them, as if I've just bought the latest and greatest gadget, only to learn that the Joneses already bought next year's model
Or writing yet another email client :o)
Cheers
On Jan 13, 2005, at 17:26, Daniel Berger wrote:
Designing a web framework seems to be one of those itches than many
programmers feel compelled to scratch. It happens in every language.
Hello George,
I don't know about you guys, but I'm starting to be overwhelmed by
the
...
learn that the Joneses already bought next year's modelwell choice is a good thing, they say
George.
But only very few of them are a good choice, and thats a bad thing.
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
Daniel Berger ha scritto:
Designing a web framework seems to be one of those itches than many
programmers feel compelled to scratch. It happens in every language.
Dan
actually, I think it's worth considering that some of the existing frameworks were started when there was a bigger itch and little stuff to scratch it (i.s., IIRC arrow, nitro, rails and the the continued IOWA development from Kirk Haines all were internally developed before they were announced).
Why? The fact that there are so much choice, both good and bad, force you to make/take decisions. This is a positive thing by itself.
"experience, n.
The wisdom that enables us to recognize as an undesirable old acquaintance the folly that we have already embraced."
-- Some dead American dude
Cheers
On Jan 13, 2005, at 18:27, Lothar Scholz wrote:
But only very few of them are a good choice, and thats a bad thing.
It might be more productive if there could be a way for people to more
easily contribute to frameworks, rather than feel that they had to
rewrite the same solutions for themselves, then releasing that
individually to give people greater "choice". Much like the
all-in-one-but-ugly Mozilla, vs the practically-nothing-but-extensive
Firefox. If I had that choice, I would take it - but I can't see it.
So the choice out there can't be good enough... guess I'll go and
start my own little framework with this in mind... or parhaps not.
Douglas
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:34:19 +0900, PA <petite.abeille@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 13, 2005, at 18:27, Lothar Scholz wrote:
> But only very few of them are a good choice, and thats a bad thing.
Why? The fact that there are so much choice, both good and bad, force
you to make/take decisions. This is a positive thing by itself.
Some people probably want some help in their decisions, and that's a reasonable desire. In the "information market" of Ruby users, there's a vital role to be played as intermediary--that is, to skip trying to be the guy who wrote everybody's favorite WAF, and instead to be the guy who writes cogent summaries of the choices to help everybody pick their own.
I just Googled for an example of a post like this, and although there's a somewhat informative Ruby-Talk thread (http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/92222\), there appears to be no such blog entry that summarizes this. (Mailing-list threads aren't enough on a topic like this, as they tend to be extremely verbose.) If you are a Ruby blogger and are looking to get more traffic to your site, you could probably boost your traffic by writing an entry about what WAF you use, and why.
Francis Hwang
On Jan 13, 2005, at 12:34 PM, PA wrote:
On Jan 13, 2005, at 18:27, Lothar Scholz wrote:
But only very few of them are a good choice, and thats a bad thing.
Why? The fact that there are so much choice, both good and bad, force you to make/take decisions. This is a positive thing by itself.
Take a look at the python side of things. The plethora of web
frameworks is confusing and contradicting the mantra of 'one way of
doing things'.
I hope ruby don't end up in this kind of situation.
"PA" <petite.abeille@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:62F9D95E-6589-11D9-A388-000393760B7E@gmail.com...
> But only very few of them are a good choice, and thats a bad thing.
Why? The fact that there are so much choice, both good and bad, force
you to make/take decisions. This is a positive thing by itself.
Not necessarily: these frameworks are meant to make people's lives easier,
i.e. be more productive and thus faster. If it takes too much time to
make a informed decision about the best choice then there are definitely
too much options to choose from - or too little information that makes
deciding possible without trying out all options.
Regards
robert
On Jan 13, 2005, at 18:27, Lothar Scholz wrote:
Douglas Livingstone wrote:
It might be more productive if there could be a way for people to more
easily contribute to frameworks, rather than feel that they had to
rewrite the same solutions for themselves, then releasing that
individually to give people greater "choice". Much like the
all-in-one-but-ugly Mozilla, vs the practically-nothing-but-extensive
Firefox. If I had that choice, I would take it - but I can't see it.
So the choice out there can't be good enough... guess I'll go and
start my own little framework with this in mind... or parhaps not.
That was kind of my thought. Choice is good, but perhaps all this effort could be better spent improving existing code bases rather than forking off new ones.
It might be more productive if there could be a way for people to more
easily contribute to frameworks, rather than feel that they had to
rewrite the same solutions for themselves, then releasing that
individually to give people greater "choice".
Actually, I think many are. I just did a quick count in the changelogs for Rails. 78 different people has contributed code since I started tracking it. So I think it could be a lot worse ;). We could have 78 other frameworks.
--
David Heinemeier Hansson,
http://www.basecamphq.com/ -- Web-based Project Management
http://www.rubyonrails.org/ -- Web-application framework for Ruby
http://macromates.com/ -- TextMate: Code and markup editor (OS X)
http://www.loudthinking.com/ -- Broadcasting Brain
Take a look at the python side of things. The plethora of web
frameworks is confusing and contradicting the mantra of 'one way
of doing things'.I hope ruby don't end up in this kind of situation.
There is a difference, I think, in the ruby community. It is that it's
small enough so that everybody can participate
Btw there should be a new class of people after the hackers/coders, it
would be the "communicators" 
People who try to find similarities of
different frameworks and try to merge them if they are close enough.
And also "geographs", who build the map of technologies and how they
are related.
Hum..
Btw anyone wants to build something like python's Twisted in ruby ?
Cheers,
zimba
Robert Klemme wrote:
"PA" <petite.abeille@gmail.com> schrieb
But only very few of them are a good choice, and thats a bad thing.
Why? The fact that there are so much choice, both good and bad, force
you to make/take decisions. This is a positive thing by itself.Not necessarily: these frameworks are meant to make people's lives easier,
i.e. be more productive and thus faster. If it takes too much time to
make a informed decision about the best choice then there are definitely
too much options to choose from - or too little information that makes
deciding possible without trying out all options.
I think it's pretty pointless to ask the world to stop writing free software, just because it might confuse some folks. There are also a lot of computer languages to choose from (none of them perfect), but we all seem to manage somehow. We pick one, use it for a while, fail or succeed, and learn from the experience, then move on. You don't have to try everything to find happiness, but it's a rare event when you hit a home run on the first try.
A plethora of frameworks is a good thing, if only because it educates a few more developers about what makes a good framework. Something as complicated as a real-life framework is full of twists and turns, and why should we discourage anybody from getting out there and taking a spin?
The good stuff will, by definition, float to the top without any negative pressure on competing projects. Instead of stomping on the stuff you don't like, how about supporting the stuff you do like? Instead of complaining about too many choices, how about making a choice and sharing your experiences?
On Jan 13, 2005, at 18:27, Lothar Scholz wrote:
--
Glenn Parker | glenn.parker-AT-comcast.net | <http://www.tetrafoil.com/>
Quoteing sera@fhwang.net, on Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 07:03:08AM +0900:
Some people probably want some help in their decisions, and that's a
reasonable desire. In the "information market" of Ruby users, there's a
vital role to be played as intermediary--that is, to skip trying to be
the guy who wrote everybody's favorite WAF, and instead to be the guy
who writes cogent summaries of the choices to help everybody pick their
own.
Yes, the choice may be good - but the lack of docs and lack of summary
of what is different/good/bad about them is overwhelming if you are
just getting in to them.
Sam
+1
I too hope ruby never adopts the 'one way of doing things' mantra.
martin
firestar <theebh@gmail.com> wrote:
Take a look at the python side of things. The plethora of web
frameworks is confusing and contradicting the mantra of 'one way of
doing things'.I hope ruby don't end up in this kind of situation.
zimba.tm@gmail.com ha scritto:
Take a look at the python side of things. The plethora of web
frameworks is confusing and contradicting the mantra of 'one way
of doing things'.I hope ruby don't end up in this kind of situation.
There is a difference, I think, in the ruby community. It is that it's
small enough so that everybody can participateBtw there should be a new class of people after the hackers/coders, it
would be the "communicators"
different frameworks and try to merge them if they are close enough.
well, I think this is actually done by the developer themselves. I.e. You can often find comments from george moschovitis on the rails weblog, and you can see Michael Neumann referring to IOWA and Og(from nitro).
The situation is not that bad, imo.
And also "geographs", who build the map of technologies and how they
are related.Hum..
Btw anyone wants to build something like python's Twisted in ruby ?
why do you feel this need?
