# Ruby on Rails Fans **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [February 5, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-on-rails-fans/101376 "2006-02-05T20:13:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/joe)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-on-rails-fans/101376/1 "2006-02-05T20:13:40Z")
Interesting article with lots of comments. Compares J2EE, .Net, PHP (flexies vs. stiffies…): > **[Ruby on Rails Fans, by Chris Shiflett](https://shiflett.org/blog/2006/ruby-on-rails-fans)** > > Chris Shiflett is an entrepreneur working at the intersection of science, design, and technology. Joe ---
**Author:** ![joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/joe)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2006, 9:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-on-rails-fans/101376/2 "2006-02-05T21:13:27Z")
Joe, Thanks for sharing the article. I enjoyed reading it. I wish he wouldn’t have said: “Rails over PHP are probably either not using PHP today or aren’t happy to be using it.” Because now I have to find time and reply to him as to why someone with 6 years of PHP/C++/Java enterprise development experience would leave PHP in a heart beat. I don’t agree with many points he makes and have started writing on the story of why I am migrating to ROR. To be a good developer, you need to go with the solution that makes everyone happy. I believe ROR is the language for “flexies” and “stiffies” as he puts it. And I am very new to ROR, but with years of extensive development experience in C++, Java, PHP, BASH and Perl. Years ago, I ditched Java for C++, then moved to PHP for pretty much the same reasons. How can I get most done with least amount of time and keep my client and myself happy? I plan to post my detailed response to his article within a week. Thanks Frank [ROR stole me from PHP and I ain’t going back] Joe [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: Interesting article with lots of comments. Compares J2EE, .Net, PHP (flexies vs. stiffies…): > **[Ruby on Rails Fans, by Chris Shiflett](https://shiflett.org/blog/2006/ruby-on-rails-fans)** > > Chris Shiflett is an entrepreneur working at the intersection of science, design, and technology. Joe – Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/](http://www.ruby-forum.com/). ---
**Author:** ![joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/joe)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-on-rails-fans/101376/3 "2006-02-05T21:19:29Z")
Yeah, that article doesn’t make much sense to me. The author needed to define his terms. What does he mean by “flexibility and power” and why would he ever put PHP in that category and exile Ruby on Rails to the organized camp with J2EE and .NET? It’s true that some Rails programmers aren’t happy to be using PHP. Why use PHP if you can use Ruby? The few reasons I see would be if you needed lots of functionality already provided by PHP packages, and you didn’t think it was a problem creating a frankenstein with those parts. -Bill ---
**Author:** ![joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/joe)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-on-rails-fans/101376/4 "2006-02-05T21:25:36Z")
After reading that article, I will agree on one thing. RoR does enforce structure, and I suppose that makes us ‘stiffies’. However, I have often found that there is nothing quite as liberating as constraints. \_Kevin ---
**Author:** ![joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/joe)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2006, 9:32pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-on-rails-fans/101376/5 "2006-02-05T21:32:38Z")
Kevin O. wrote: > After reading that article, I will agree on one thing. RoR does enforce > structure, and I suppose that makes us ‘stiffies’. > > However, I have often found that there is nothing quite as liberating as > constraints. > > \_Kevin I agree, as opposed to spending loads of time getting lost way out in left field with PHP which gives you all the rope you need to hang yourself. I definitely fall into the “aren’t happy to be using [PHP]” camp. I haven’t yet found a single reason to prefer it over Ruby/Rails. Joe ---
**Author:** ![joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@joe](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/joe)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-on-rails-fans/101376/6 "2006-02-06T01:39:11Z")
On 2/5/06, Kevin O. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > … > > However, I have often found that there is nothing quite as liberating as > constraints. > … There’s actually real “science” to back this up. A book came out a few years back called “Design Rules, Vol. 1. The Power of Modularity”, by Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark. It discusses how well-designed “platforms” with specific design constraints promote modularity and create a framework for innovation. They used the computer industry as an example, where the mostly-open architecture of the PC made it possible for 3rd-party innovators to create new and better components that drove performance up and costs down. CPUs themselves became modular designs, permitting the incredible density that they have today. It seems paradoxical that constraints can be liberating, but they eliminate wasted repetition (think of the rails scaffolding) so that effort can be spent on real innovation. ## dean Dean W. [http://www.aspectprogramming.com](http://www.aspectprogramming.com) [http://www.newaspects.com](http://www.newaspects.com) [http://www.contract4j.org](http://www.contract4j.org)