I think the strongest plus is the connection with the opensource community. It's not just about getting software for free - some people would even make the (occasionally correct) arguement that it's worth what you paid for it...
1) The opensource gets so many more competent eyes on the code that problems (and usually their solutions as well) are found very quickly. 2) In addition, with open source developers are free to explore their own variants. These often lead to new extensions of the product that might not have surfaced from the original developers. 3) Finally, the opensource community provides an invaluable informed community - we don't just read the books, we read the code. We are able to separate the party line answer from the truth. Now if we could only get some social behavior patterns that aren't so scary... On Apr 3, 12:59 pm, Mark Turner <m...@amerine.net> wrote: > On Apr 3, 3:03 pm, Greg Donald <gdon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Mark Turner <m...@amerine.net> wrote: > > > Rails is a mature framework > > > No, it's not. > > This conversation will go way out of Chris's question's. Sorry Chris. > > > > > How can you say something like that after everything that's changed > > from 2.2 -> 2.3 ? Or knowing what's likely to change with 3.0 when > > more of Merb gets merged in? > > > When I read things like "middleware layers being completely rewritten" > > it leads me to question why they were written so incorrectly to start > > with that they needed to be completely rewritten. When I read things > > like "memory sessions have been removed" I gotta wonder who thought > > they were a good idea to start with? Newsflash: some of use were > > using those. (Yes I'm aware of how to get them back using the plugin, > > that's not the point.) If you're gonna put something in there, have a > > good reason for putting it in there, have a reason so good that you > > won't later find an opposing reason strong enough to remove it. > > You're trying to tell me that backwards compatibly is the key to > determining maturity? > I disagree completely. Just like moving from gcc 3.2 to 3.4.. > regressions happen. Hence the reason for the developer to stay on top > of the changes in the frameworks, tools and languages they use for a > living. Hell look at Java 1.4 to the current 6.x (which if you follow > their previous versioning it would be 1.6)changes most of the user > exposed API's have been left alone but there are plenty of examples of > changes that would cause you to experience pain deploying your 1.4 app > on any 6.0 jre. > > This is one of the reasons testing has become so popular, not just in > our community but in most other development communities. > > And I calling rails mature in comparison to .net mvc seems pretty rock > solid to me. > > > The Rails API and docs change constantly and are often out of sync. > > Last month for example, api.rubyonrails.com was showing new 2.3 > > features before 2.3 was even released. How'd you like to be a new guy > > scratching his head over grouped_options_for_select being in the docs > > but not in the framework? I could much more easily accept the reverse > > case. > > Agreed. > > > And what about the gem servers that are constantly up and down? How > > can newcomers have any faith in Rail's maturity when you can't even > > install it sometimes? > > Rubyforge happens to be the standard gem repo right now, and > installing rails through gem is the de-facto standard method but > hardly the only way. > > > > > And what about the book situation? Rails is changing so much, so fast > > that a Rails book you buy today will be useless 6 months from now. I > > have 8 and 10 year old Perl books that I still use to this very day. > > Hmm and I seem to have an 8 year old ruby book that is still just as > valid as it is now, this is about Rails not Ruby. Try opening the > Catalyst book from packt and tell me things won't be different today. > This is an issue with computer books that's been around forever. > > > I love working in Rails, it's the fastest way I know of to build a > > website, but mature is the last thing I'd ever say about it. I have > > absolutely no faith in the API remaining the same from even a .1 to a > > .2 release, much less 2.x to 3.0. If you can't count on the > > user-level API being stable how can you even begin to say it's mature? > > I guess we have different views about maturity. Oh well. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
