Forum: Ruby on Rails Java kicks Rails's butt - it says right here!

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Aafa8848c4b764f080b1b31a51eab73d?d=identicon&s=25 Phlip (Guest)
on 2009-05-27 05:30
(Received via mailing list)
http://java.sys-con.com/node/965189

I am certainly going back to Java, just as soon as I figure out how to
configure
Tomcat.

Until then, anyone care to take on this logic? Has anyone here used Java
the way
they say they should?

--
   Phlip
Dd2d775dea75b381edb1bbf0600a0907?d=identicon&s=25 Marnen Laibow-Koser (marnen)
on 2009-05-27 05:50
Phlip wrote:
> http://java.sys-con.com/node/965189
>
> I am certainly going back to Java, just as soon as I figure out how to
> configure
> Tomcat.

:)

>
> Until then, anyone care to take on this logic? Has anyone here used Java
> the way
> they say they should?

I like what he showed of the model-driven nature of OpenXava -- that
seems extremely cool (if it actually works).  It's too bad that he chose
to write the article as a dis to Rails (which he clearly doesn't know a
damn thing about) rather than as a plug for OpenXava.

He should have remembered: when writing articles, never eschew the
opportunity to fail to neglect to use a *positive* viewpoint.
>
> --
>    Phlip

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen@marnen.org
89992299997cb05046d970aa3d867ff8?d=identicon&s=25 Steve Hull (sdhull)
on 2009-05-27 05:53
Phlip wrote:
> it says right here!

well if it said it on the interwebs, then it *must* be true.

lol

in all seriousness, take a look at first few paragraphs.  there are an
awful lot of qualifiers.  ie, "this article *tries* to demonstrate"...
"I prefer" comes up a lot...

At the end of the day, this is going to depend on your style,
preferences, and what you're used to.

But I can make my judgement simply by *looking* at the page.  It's
poorly constructed.  When I loaded it, it sent me to the very bottom (to
the "Top Stories" portion).  The design is cluttered and certainly not
streamlined.  Portions of the page are cut off.

finally, there's personal experience.  I can't believe that anyone who
has designed and implemented webapps in Java and Ruby on Rails could
possibly argue that Java is faster/easier/more straightforward (that is
to say -- I have designed and built webapps in both.  Rails was waaaaay
faster for me).  Furthermore I find that the Ruby language is more
concise and intuitive (in general -- there are one or two exceptions).
96fc3b82ceb54945fecca2fbdddd85a2?d=identicon&s=25 Py Jay (ppjunty)
on 2009-05-27 08:02
Steve, you don't need to go too far, just take the subtitle and the very
first sentence:

"This article demonstrates that Java is more productive than Ruby"
"This article tries to demonstrate that Java can be more productive than
Ruby."
81b61875e41eaa58887543635d556fca?d=identicon&s=25 Frederick Cheung (Guest)
on 2009-05-27 09:50
(Received via mailing list)
On May 27, 4:29 am, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://java.sys-con.com/node/965189
>
> I am certainly going back to Java, just as soon as I figure out how to configure
> Tomcat.
>
> Until then, anyone care to take on this logic? Has anyone here used Java the way
> they say they should?
>
Some of the comments on rails are a bit out of date (ie the bit where
you have to write sql by hand rather than write a migration and having
to restart the server to pick up code changes.). What I can't tell
from there is how easy it is once you want to change the default
appearance, eg I can get a 0 code generation admin interface with
activescaffold but once you start to want significant changes to that
interface it can get pretty tortuous. I'd also get pretty tired of
writing those accessors.

Fred
3131fcea0a711e5ad89c8d49cc9253b4?d=identicon&s=25 Julian Leviston (Guest)
on 2009-05-27 12:25
(Received via mailing list)
On 27/05/2009, at 1:50 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:

> I like what he showed of the model-driven nature of OpenXava -- that
> seems extremely cool (if it actually works).  It's too bad that he
> chose
> to write the article as a dis to Rails (which he clearly doesn't
> know a
> damn thing about) rather than as a plug for OpenXava.


Perhaps he wanted to piggy back off the fame of ruby & rails

----------------------------------------------
Learn: http://sensei.zenunit.com/
Last updated 20-May-09 (Rails, Basic Unix)
Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/random8r
Aafa8848c4b764f080b1b31a51eab73d?d=identicon&s=25 Phlip (Guest)
on 2009-05-27 15:32
(Received via mailing list)
Frederick Cheung wrote:

> Some of the comments on rails are a bit out of date (ie the bit where
> you have to write sql by hand rather than write a migration and having
> to restart the server to pick up code changes.).

You... you mean showing off you don't know enough about Rails to work
with it is
not a valid way to compare?? Gosh!

--
   Phlip
83ca41657a99b65d99889abe712ba5e2?d=identicon&s=25 Jason Roelofs (Guest)
on 2009-05-27 15:59
(Received via mailing list)
So this guy's saying that using one library that someone has put a TON
of
effort in for scaffolding is better than using another library's
scaffolding
system?

How is this Java vs Rails (.... god what is with people and HORRIBLE
comparisons. Language vs Library?!)?

Java is Fail, it leads to people thinking like the poor sod who wrote
the
post.

Jason
85f8b7bbe07bff22e0b38cca818cf692?d=identicon&s=25 Luke Pearce (kule)
on 2009-05-27 17:08
Phlip wrote:
>
> Until then, anyone care to take on this logic?

Actually I found the following statement about sums it up:

"The productivity in Java world is a cultural problem, not a technical
one. That is this is not a Java fault, it's our fault, we, the Java
developers, need to design very beautiful architectures..."

I have nothing against Java however I look at the example Recipe.java
and it reminds me of one of the reasons I switched to using Rails in the
first place...would I prefer a 50+ line model full of getters & setters
or a succinct 2 line one in Rails?

From my point of view you don't need to see all the cruft; all you
really want to see & code is the business logic for your app.

Luke
9585700be7677e1fd09193c1bd8efb23?d=identicon&s=25 Cesar Diaz (cesarstafe)
on 2009-05-27 18:04
(Received via mailing list)
I tried learn Java language. Five years ago I went to a Java course at
a well known university here and it was so boring. In fact I enjoyed
it cero minutes learning something about Java language, at point that
I enjoyed much more to learn something about object techiques and that
was the most exiting in that course, but zero enjoying from the Java
side.

Then I worked in state offices where there was a 'team' of javaboys,
and the results I think were not at all good. To build an simple
application, they were an entire year with a lot of troubles and
without generate something elegant or at least reliable. Well, I know
that maybe it was fault of programmers.

I prefer go back to Php code or learn Django framework and learn a
good language as Python before go with Java.

Cesar

PS: Of course, all that I wrote is from my point of view and without
offenses
_______________________________________________
Gnu/Linux count user #416024

Mi blog : http://cesarediaz.blogspot.com
My public repository at http://github.com/cesarediaz
Skype: cesarstafe
B211f888a7c3c759166a64c29f9718d3?d=identicon&s=25 Altair (Guest)
on 2009-05-27 18:15
(Received via mailing list)
This article seems to have very dated information (released May 16,
2009? Is the writer using Internet Archive for his browsing?).

Furthermore, the approach of (seemingly) only having control over the
model seems ridiculous to me. The presented framework seems useful
only for "throw-away" applications that don't really do anything
interesting.

That all said, I'm obviously making the same mistake the writer of the
article made; I haven't done much extensive research into the
capabilities of OX, and can't speak to it's benefits or detriments.
But I also haven't written an article titled "RoR is better than Java
LOLOLOL", so there you go.

On May 27, 9:08 am, Luke Pearce <rails-mailing-l...@andreas-s.net>
6883e5ef03484d4fcef507d7b4f1d243?d=identicon&s=25 Matt Jones (Guest)
on 2009-05-27 18:24
(Received via mailing list)
I saw that article a while back... the system described (OpenXava)
looks great, as long as you want your site to look just like all the
others created with that framework. Maybe my Java-acronym-parsing
skills are rusty, but I couldn't find anything on the OpenXava wiki
about theming, skinning, etc. A truly determined response to that
article would show how easy it is to change the Rails scaffold code,
and how *not* easy OpenXava makes it.

Personally, I count the number of Java refugees at my local Ruby
Brigade meeting, and that's all I need to know... :)

--Matt Jones
Aafa8848c4b764f080b1b31a51eab73d?d=identicon&s=25 Phlip (Guest)
on 2009-05-27 18:51
(Received via mailing list)
Altair wrote:

> This article seems to have very dated information (released May 16,
> 2009? Is the writer using Internet Archive for his browsing?).

I don't know enough Java to read the article, but at a guess the author
is
bragging about features that Rails inspired in a Java library... then
inexplicably claiming Rails does not have those same features.

Also, I could not find the word "test" in the article...

--
   Phlip
280b78a61a968391b7e07e912be102a8?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Walker (robert4723)
on 2009-05-27 19:11
Phlip wrote:
> http://java.sys-con.com/node/965189
>
> I am certainly going back to Java, just as soon as I figure out how to
> configure
> Tomcat.
>
> Until then, anyone care to take on this logic? Has anyone here used Java
> the way
> they say they should?

Here is my biggest problem with the entire article:

"Model Driven Framework"

My day job is as a Java developer, and I can testify that this is the
line of thinking of most Java developers I know. In my opinion "Model
Driven" design is exactly upside-down. End users don't care one bit
about how beautiful, or elegant, your model code is. They don't want to
see a user interface that exposes the design of the model.

What users care about is the experience. The interface that allows them
to accomplish whatever task is at hand. If that means pulling data from
20 different model objects and mashing them together on a single page,
then so be it. The tools the developers use must be able to support
whatever presentation makes sense for the end user, not for themselves
to make development life easy.

This is a line of thinking that Ruby on Rails confirmed for me as a
developer.

http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch09_Interface_First.php
D877dec36ab3027ff7c9016e83cc1a4f?d=identicon&s=25 Jack Bauer (realmadrid2727)
on 2009-05-27 19:57
So he compares OpenXava's database schema ability to Rails'.........
hand-coded SQL?

What?

I especially like this part:


>@recipe.date = Time.now
>
>The equivalent in OX is adding the @DefaultValueCalculator annotation in model:
>
>@DefaultValueCalculator(CurrentDateCalculator.class)
>private Date date;
>
>You obtain the same effect in a more declarative way.

I'd like to meet the RoR dev that creates a date column and manually
uses that instead of the magic created_at/updated_at timestamps.
0a74cb829351fc379cc5ce1b462bd08d?d=identicon&s=25 rgravina (Guest)
on 2009-05-28 11:28
(Received via mailing list)
On May 28, 2:11 am, Robert Walker <rails-mailing-l...@andreas-s.net>
wrote:
>
> Here is my biggest problem with the entire article:
>
> "Model Driven Framework"
>
> My day job is as a Java developer, and I can testify that this is the
> line of thinking of most Java developers I know. In my opinion "Model
> Driven" design is exactly upside-down. End users don't care one bit
> about how beautiful, or elegant, your model code is. They don't want to
> see a user interface that exposes the design of the model.

Agreed. That's what Behaviour Driven Development (a la Cucumber) is
all about. I can remember a recent example where I was starting with
the model and ending up with attributes I didn't need. When I did it
the BDD way, the models only contained what they needed to support the
views (which the user cares about).

I've learned the hard way (i.e. by maintaining my own crap!) not to
overcomplicate things with factory this and generic-abstraction that.
It takes some experience to know the difference between a simple
solution and a hack/quickfix. I'm still not there yet.

Robert
B211f888a7c3c759166a64c29f9718d3?d=identicon&s=25 Altair (Guest)
on 2009-05-28 21:09
(Received via mailing list)
I couldn't have said it better than Robert.

On May 27, 11:11 am, Robert Walker <rails-mailing-l...@andreas-s.net>
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.