# FreeRIDE vs Rails **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [August 7, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/freeride-vs-rails/111464 "2007-08-07T17:16:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Phlip)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/freeride-vs-rails/111464/1 "2007-08-07T17:16:15Z")
Rubies: A perfectly factored program always has methods that are only 2 or 3 lines long, each in a file with only two or three methods. This means, with a well-factored system like Rails, you have to rapidly navigate between various points in various files, to get anything done. Navigation becomes one of the biggest developmental burdens. So how close is FreeRIDE to these features? - bookmark any location - cycle between bookmarks _between_ files - find-in-all-files - find-in-all-open-files Note that “find in all files” does not mean the way Textmate does it. That application simply invokes a “grep” system, then dumps its results into a popup window. This then requires a lot of mouse or keyboard abuse to navigate from find to find. A true “find-in-files” should work seamlessly from the existing find system. Has anyone started to add these features, so I can see what they did? ---
**Author:** ![Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Phlip)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 5:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/freeride-vs-rails/111464/2 "2007-08-07T17:28:19Z")
On 8/7/07, Phlip [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Rubies: > > A perfectly factored program always has methods that are only 2 or 3 > lines long, each in a file with only two or three methods. Says who? (especially the 2-3 methods per file thing) Yes, method definitions should be refactored to be short so they can fit in memory easily. But it irks me when people set this to n-lines. I much prefer the metrics of ‘one concept per method’ and ‘a small amount of nesting’ to just setting arbitrary number of lines and an arbitrary number of methods. ---
**Author:** ![Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Phlip)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 6:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/freeride-vs-rails/111464/3 "2007-08-07T18:08:27Z")
Phlip wrote: > Has anyone started to add these features, so I can see what they did? I’m pretty sure FreeRIDE is open source, so taking a look should be simple, and if you don’t find the features you want, you might consider adding them. – James B. “Simplicity of the language is not what matters, but simplicity of use.” - Richard A. O’Keefe in squeak-dev mailing list ---
**Author:** ![Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Phlip)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 7:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/freeride-vs-rails/111464/4 "2007-08-07T19:33:37Z")
On 8/7/07, Phlip [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Gregory B. wrote: > > > > A perfectly factored program always has methods that are only 2 or 3 > > > lines long, each in a file with only two or three methods. > > > > Says who? (especially the 2-3 methods per file thing) > > It’s a joke! Oh. I guess I missed that 🙂 Rails is a perfect example of a system that takes code separation too far. (IMO) ---
**Author:** ![Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Phlip)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 7:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/freeride-vs-rails/111464/5 "2007-08-07T19:23:34Z")
Gregory B. wrote: > > A perfectly factored program always has methods that are only 2 or 3 > > lines long, each in a file with only two or three methods. > > Says who? (especially the 2-3 methods per file thing) It’s a joke! ---
**Author:** ![Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Phlip](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Phlip)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2007, 9:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/freeride-vs-rails/111464/6 "2007-08-07T21:56:56Z")
On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Gregory B. wrote: > Oh. I guess I missed that 🙂 > > Rails is a perfect example of a system that takes code separation > too far. (IMO) Actually, it only takes the separation as far as you ask it to. You can really do amazingly simple things without using most of what’s in Rails, and yet still make something that is easier to maintain, by having nice places to put repeated web page elements (headers and footers), even if that’s all you need, it works well. The real beauty in (IMHO) is the way it takes CGI out of your hands and lets you focus on making something useful.