All, Have a friend who is starting out on Windows with Rails using Instant Rails but he's having problems. Anybody have any good/bad experience with it so I can help set his expectations? Thanks, Wes
on 2008-11-10 21:40
on 2008-11-10 22:59
Although yes it is ok to use instant rails when initially starting out with ROR but when i began i just installed ruby and downloaded free netbeans IDE. Netbeans had everything built in and ready to go out of the box.
on 2008-11-10 23:33
Yes InstantRails is still the best way to start. You get Ruby, Rails, Apache, phpMyAdmin all ready configured and ready to go. Once you have been going for some time then you can spread your wings and do whatever you like. I use NetBeans on windows and Linux but still have my Ruby/Mysql etc all packaged in the InstantRails folder on windows. Cheers George
on 2008-11-10 23:46
Hi, I'm happy with InstantRails. I use RadRails, but only to edit files and have a nice environment, but I don't use the IDE really. InstantRails is very handy, make sure you update to Rails 2.1.2 after downloading it, at least last time I got it there was Rails 2.0 with it. Regards
on 2008-11-11 00:09
Just to play devil's advocate... If you spend some time reading on the web, and retrieve and install all the pieces and parts yourself, you'll have a much better notion of just what the moving parts are, and you'll know what you have installed when the inevitable gotcha happens. You're forced to learn about what makes up your application and the runtime, and as such, you are not beholden to anyone else to bring your environment up to speed with the next version of whatever widget. I've followed that tactic with both Windows (early development) and Linux (production) installs, and while frustrating at times, I have a very short list of known players in my application. It made it very simple to migrate from Windows development to Linux production... (and to re-create my development envt in an Ubuntu VMware instance), and to go from Rails 1.2.6 to Rails 2.1.0.
on 2008-11-11 01:03
Wes G. wrote: > All, > > Have a friend who is starting out on Windows with Rails using Instant > Rails but he's having problems. Anybody have any good/bad experience > with it so I can help set his expectations? > > Thanks, > Wes Developing Rails on Windows, is generally a bad idea. Install cygwin to try and mimic as much as possible your production environment if your server will run linux.
on 2008-11-11 01:22
What kind of problems is he having and what version of IR is he using. The sample apps may not run with IR 2.x. I have found IR works fine (within the limitations of Windows) but I only use it for some deployment. I develop with Linux which I think gives a much better environment as well as better performance. Norm
on 2008-11-11 03:31
Something I have not tried, but worth checking out is this: http://bitnami.org/stack/rubystack On Nov 11, 4:40 am, Wes G. <email@example.com>
on 2008-11-11 20:04
My experience with Instant Rails is that it's a very nice way to get going, but if you're going to do any kind of serious development you're going to end up installing everything anyway My advice: If you just want to play around with rails a little bit but never intend on doing any "real" work with it then IR is fine. If you're getting started on a project that you plan on eventually deploying to a server somewhere, go through the steps of getting everything installed properly on your box.
on 2008-11-11 20:08
> My advice: > If you just want to play around with rails a little bit but never > intend on doing any "real" work with it then IR is fine. If you're > getting started on a project that you plan on eventually deploying to > a server somewhere, go through the steps of getting everything > installed properly on your box. I would take it a step farther and say if you are going to do some "real work" (what is real work anyway?), then I would recommend trying to get an install up on a Linux box somewhere. When you deploy, it will more than likely be to a Linux-based server, so it will save you many headaches if you have at least one box where you can develop as close to the deployment environment as possible. Just a thought.