Ruby on web without RoR

Is possible to use only Ruby without Rails on web?

On 10/04/2010 08:44 PM, João Mello wrote:

Is possible to use only Ruby without Rails on web?

Ruby is a complete programming language with a large selection of
functionality and libraries. You can create command line and GUI
applications, web clients, servers, whatever you want. You’re only
limited by the amount of effort you’re willing to spend.

-Jeremy

Yes.

look up rack, sinatra, padrino, camping, ramaize, and others.

2010/10/4 João Mello [email protected]

On Oct 4, 2010, at 18:56 , Jeremy B. wrote:

On 10/04/2010 08:44 PM, João Mello wrote:

Is possible to use only Ruby without Rails on web?

Ruby is a complete programming language with a large selection of
functionality and libraries. You can create command line and GUI
applications, web clients, servers, whatever you want. You’re only
limited by the amount of effort you’re willing to spend.

bad answer. see steve’s answer for an example of how to be helpful.

Wow I can only imagine what my useless top posted message is going to
get
from the posting policeman.

John

Please ignore that Ryan D… I believe that any message besides his
attempt to troll was important here.

I think what you mean is a easy way but not rails-like to develop for
the
web. I strongly advise you try Sinatra las Steve K. has mentioned,
it’s
awesome.

The e-mail by Jeremy was also important as he could be asking if it was
possible to develop for web by any means, which it is.

On Oct 4, 2010, at 18:58 , Steve K. wrote:

Yes.

look up rack, sinatra, padrino, camping, ramaize, and others.

great answer (except for being a top post).

On 10/04/2010 09:08 PM, Ryan D. wrote:

bad answer. see steve’s answer for an example of how to be helpful.

Yes, everyone. I answered poorly. Please accept my most sincere
apologies.

Thank you so much, Ryan, for taking your valuable time to point out to
everyone on the list which posts are good and which are not. Your
responses to this thread in particular have certainly saved many people
from being confused and added greatly to the content of the answer to
the OP’s question. Kudos to you, my friend.

Isn’t it nice to have a referee around who is able to weigh in on
whether a post is good or bad? I have warm fuzzies! Gosh.

-Jeremy

On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:44:33AM +0900, João Mello wrote:

Is possible to use only Ruby without Rails on web?

Absolutely.

I started building a CMS less than a week ago, and started using it a
couple days later for a Weblog, entirely in Ruby (and XHTML+CSS,
naturally), with no Rails. I’m using eruby for it.

You can also skip even eruby, and just do CGI stuff if you want to.

Then, of course, there’s always the framework option – and there are a
bunch of frameworks other than Rails.

2010/10/4 João Mello [email protected]

Is possible to use only Ruby without Rails on web?

Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Here is a Euroko conference talk about how to build your own web
framework:
http://www.vimeo.com/12665769 it was okay, but a bit hard to follow.

Here is a video about how to build your own sinatra (simple Ruby web
framework)
http://teachmetocode.com/screencasts/faking-sinatra-with-rack-and-metaprogramming/(I
haven’t watched this one yet).

Any app that is rack compliant can be put on any rack compliant host,
such
as Heroku (disclaimer: Heroku does support any rack compliant app, but
has a
lot of railsy expectations that you will have to read docs, and dig
through
the Heroku gem source code to understand). Here is a simple example, it
shows you can do something “useful” and throw it on Heroku.
http://gist.github.com/438689, and the app itself
http://furious-day-14.heroku.com/

On 10/5/2010 2:10 PM, Ryan D. wrote:

On Oct 4, 2010, at 19:40 , Jeremy B. wrote:

Yes, everyone. I answered poorly. Please accept my most sincere apologies.
[… much snark removed …]

Before you get your panties bunched up any more, consider the original question vs the two answers I pointed out made a bit more generic:

You continue to create even more noise on this thread while never once
addressing the original question as posed. All you did was come in and
act as some sort of arrogant prick by saying, “Yea, this is blessed.
Ne, that is not.”

I answered generally to what I read as a generally worded question. I’m
sorry that it doesn’t meet your standards. You could have just ignored
it all, moved on, and allowed the thread to take its course, or you
could have politely addressed me directly off list with your opinions.
The readers here are smart enough to judge the quality of my post on
their own.

Now, if you can’t contribute something to this thread, STFU, and let it
rest.

-Jeremy

On Oct 4, 2010, at 19:40 , Jeremy B. wrote:

Yes, everyone. I answered poorly. Please accept my most sincere apologies.
[… much snark removed …]

Before you get your panties bunched up any more, consider the original
question vs the two answers I pointed out made a bit more generic:

OP: Is possible to __________?

JB: _____ is a complete programming language with a large selection of functionality and libraries. You can create command line and GUI applications, web clients, servers, whatever you want. You’re only limited by the amount of effort you’re willing to spend.

SK: Yes. Look up rack, sinatra, padrino, camping, ramaize, and others.

Now, you tell me what the signal:noise is for your answer vs SK’s
answer…

Try to tell me if anyone can tell what question you’re answering or
even what programming language you’re answering it for. It could have
been any question and any language for all we care. Your answer is a
non-answer.

SK’s answer is so specific you can derive the question AND language just
by following his instructions.

When you are new to a language/OS/environment/whatever, what type of
answer do you want for your questions?

JB: Hi. I’m new to this school. Can you tell me how to get to the
library?

Me: This is a complete college complete with libraries and departments
of research of every kind imaginable. You can find anything you want on
this campus. You’re only limited by the amount of effort you’re willing
to spend.

SK: Sure, go that way past the large brick building, turn left, and it
is right in front of you. You can’t miss it.

Useful, isn’t it? Maybe next time you can contribute to the signal
instead of the noise.

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs