Move over Ruby on Rails, Java can be concise too!

Home

News: Move over Ruby on Rails, Java can be concise too!

  1. There has recently been a lot of fuss about the Ruby on Rails framework. One of its best known applications, Ta-da List, has important problems. Rails advocates constantly rave about the increase in productivity and the low line count, but is it that important that security should be solved only through obscurity? Complex problems can't always be solved with simple solutions, let alone ignore them.

    Bla-bla List has been developed with the RIFE framework to see if it would really take 10 times longer and 3 times more code if the same application was made in Java instead. After solving all the problems and adding a number of missing features, the entire application is only 300 lines longer (a 50% increase) and the server tier took not more than 2 days to write. Considering the conciseness of the Ruby language itself and gaps in the original application, it doesn't seem that the Ruby on Rails advocates are in a position to criticize Java as a language as much as they do. By choosing the the right tools for the job, Java can be concise too!

    A detailed post about Ta-da List problems and how they were solved can be read here.

    Threaded Messages (126)

  2. none of the problems that you mention with tadalist is a problem of ruby on rails. Its really sad for you that you spend your time bashing other stuff in a FUD way. I am sorry for you :)
  3. Never said that it was a problem of RoR. It's easy to drop line count by not addressing important issues and then brag about it, which is what has been done when Ta-da has been released. Using a tool as an example for how great a technology is, and not implementing features that should actually be part of the initial design is asking for trouble after the hype David Heinemeier is constantly making. I never bashed Rails at all, but come on, Ta-da has been made by the authors of Rails. You aren't telling me that he didn't know how to put his own framework to a good use ...

    If there's one party that constantly overhyping and throwing darts at others, it's the blog entries on http://www.rubyonrails.com, not the Java community. These are people to feel sorry for. They should expect to reap what they sew.
  4. Wow![ Go to top ]

    Amazing, a java person actually advocating java! In public too! No doubt the deluge of unemployable ruby adolescents will come out swinging, but still, nice to see SOME java developers don't mind java.
  5. Ruby employment[ Go to top ]

    In the past 5 months of Ruby on Rails development, I have had more than a half dozen people independently contact me to do Ruby development. Out of the ones I have had time for, I am being very well compensated for my work. I know of a couple other Ruby developers where I live in the same boat as I am, and I'll tell you what, we are all loving it.
  6. Wow![ Go to top ]

    Amazing, a java person actually advocating java! In public too! No doubt the deluge of unemployable ruby adolescents will come out swinging, but still, nice to see SOME java developers don't mind java.

    What's Ruby?

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Shared Memories for J2EE Clusters
  7. Wow![ Go to top ]

    Amazing, a java person actually advocating java! In public too! No doubt the deluge of unemployable ruby adolescents will come out swinging, but still, nice to see SOME java developers don't mind java.
    What's Ruby?Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol, Inc.Coherence: Shared Memories for J2EE Clusters
    The guy who killed the guy who killed Kennedy.
  8. stones[ Go to top ]

    Amazing, a java person actually advocating java! In public too! No doubt the deluge of unemployable ruby adolescents will come out swinging, but still, nice to see SOME java developers don't mind java.
    What's Ruby?Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol, Inc.Coherence: Shared Memories for J2EE Clusters

    I thought rubies are precious or semi-precious stones of reddish color :)
  9. Wow![ Go to top ]

    Amazing, a java person actually advocating java! In public too! No doubt the deluge of unemployable ruby adolescents will come out swinging, but still, nice to see SOME java developers don't mind java.

    +1

    So one of the biggest advocates of RoR can get six requests for jobs. This does not indicate a trend.
  10. Dice[ Go to top ]

    I checked the Dice job board.

    1 job for Ruby Rails.
    2000 for Java JSP.
    54 for Java JSF.

    This does not mean that there is no merit to RoR, but I would not call in a trend.
  11. I don't get[ Go to top ]

    ... all that hype around this thing. At least, few times, I read about ROR - here, on the java oriented site. Could anybody explain to me why should anybody bother? There is a lot of home grown web frameworks with even more concise grammar than Ruby (Perl comes to mind) - but nobody bother. Do we really have take part in competition like: 'look Ma my c00l code is shorter'? Just my $0.2. :)

    Artur
  12. I don't get[ Go to top ]

    ... all that hype around this thing

    What hype?!?!?!?
  13. I don't get[ Go to top ]

    ... all that hype around this thing
    What hype?!?!?!?

    For example:
    you can do with Ruby on Rails what you can do with J2EE
  14. A response from Rails[ Go to top ]

    I've posted a response on http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/archives/2005/03/19/bla-bla-list-cloning-a-rails-app-in-rife/
  15. Broken Comments section[ Go to top ]

    I wanted to post this on your blog, however your comment section is broken. This is my post:

    Ruby Developers must be the most smug community on the Internet.

    Get over yourselves.

    Fact: Neither platform is perfect for everything.
  16. You missed a major feature[ Go to top ]

    Seems you missed one of Ta-Da's key features: printable lists.
  17. I added printable private lists, even though this is actually an effect of using Laszlo. For the code pissers, it took 5 additional lines of XML and 2 additional lines of Java code. Still have to make a nicer icon, but this one will have to do for now, don't have time for anything else.
  18. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    Go to www.workopolis.com
    Select "Search Jobs" link.
    Enter "Ruby" in keywords textbox.
    Hit "Search" button.
    Note results.

    Select "Search Jobs" link again.
    Enter "Java" in keywords textbox.
    Hit "Search" button.
    Compare results with previous search using keyword "Ruby"

    Try the same at http://hotjobs.yahoo.com

    Check out http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index/tekst.htm

    I should care about Ruby, why?
  19. You should care.[ Go to top ]

    Because you can do with Ruby on Rails what you can do with J2EE, and if you want to keep using J2EE, fine! You may be the last guy using J2EE on Earth, if you so wish.

    A more pragmatic approach would be to give Ruby on Rails a try, as more than a thousand of people have done, many of which are using Rails right now, personally or professionally.

    You see, Rails is close to the 1.0 release. You could become one of the pioneers as well. There are many job positions appearing.

    Between Ruby and Rails, these jobs that are appearing are for Rails positions, which means that people are being pragmatic about it, instead of using preconcept because of the less known language.

    There is a Rails book about to be released by Dave Thomas, of the Pragmatic Programmers.

    Etc. You should invest at least a dime to see what you get out of the deal. :-)

    I don't use Rails, because I'm not very good at Web-Development, but I'm using Ruby and know that I can count on Rails when the time comes.

    Cheers,
    Joao (who studied Java for two years before leaving it for Ruby).
  20. You should care.[ Go to top ]

    What should I care, I'm extremely productive with what I know and currently use. Some things are interesting in RoR, and we'll get inspired by them to solve some problems, just like for any other interesting competing technology.
  21. You should care.[ Go to top ]

    Because you can do with Ruby on Rails what you can do with J2EE

    Like what? I'm honestly curious, since I've yet to see anything (other than 3D FPS games) not possible in a J2EE environment. I'm not suggesting that J2EE is "the best" for anything, just that I haven't run into anything that it can't do.

    Or did you mean that RoR is _better_ at certain things?
    .. and if you want to keep using J2EE, fine! You may be the last guy using J2EE on Earth, if you so wish.

    Quite Klausian.
    You see, Rails is close to the 1.0 release. You could become one of the pioneers as well. There are many job positions appearing.

    Quite Marcian.

    You guys need to go easy on the Koolaid.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Shared Memories for J2EE Clusters
  22. Rails includes everything that you should need in a Web-Framework, and they are dying to add anything if it's really missing. They have welcomed many additions and are still adding missing features. By the time it reaches the 1.0 release, it should have enough features to make up for 90% of the needs for Web-Applications and Web-Sites.

    Rails is the single most important Ruby Web-Framework, which means that people have rallied to support it. Even Ruby old-timers have been glad to jump on board. It means that Ruby is different than Python, which had the potential, but Zope and the other several Frameworks were more complex or less featured than people needed. Ruby is more OO and generally more powerful than Python, and as the proof is in the pudding, Ruby is used for everything -- for configuration files, for template files, etc. Ruby has ERuby and ERb, which are the same, but the former is in C and the later is in pure Ruby. They can be used in template files, for what you could use Velocity or JSP for.

    FastCGI has been underused, and Rails makes good use of it. It provides the necessary performance for larger installations, together with other best practices. Nonetheless, Ruby has its own "Tomcat", called WEBrick (nice name if you ask me). WEBrick is pure Ruby and can be used for development and small installations on Windows, Linux, or wherever the Open Source Ruby has a binary, which means wherever there is a gcc compiler.

    Ruby is pretty old -- about 13 years. It has matured throughout the years, thanks for the work of many dedicated Japaneses, who form the core of the Ruby developers. Ruby has many libraries as well, because Ruby has been very pragmatic since the beggining, so it has nice C support which is used to create many high-performance bindings. :-)

    People at Sun and Microsoft have demonstrated interest in Ruby, but Ruby is yet to really become as used as it deserves.

    I would say that you need a dynamic language, and Ruby is a perfect match for that.

    This is my sincere opinion, and it's as cold and shocking as it gets. I understand that many people have other interests besides doing well when programming. :-)

    Ok, I started talking about Rails and I should have kept on the subject. Many people that use Rails barely know Ruby, which is one of the reasons for the popularity explosion of Rails. Anyone can give it a try. 30 minutes is all that it gets to get you addicted. Maybe a little more if you can't get it to install in that time. :-)
  23. You should care.[ Go to top ]

    I agree that J2EE isn't always the best solution but the reality of the marketplace dictates that it is certainly a far more important technology than Ruby.

    Java gets bashed a lot, but the guy at the top of the heap always does. I like Java. I like J2EE. I find working with Java technologies interesting and fun. Java's not perfect, but what technology is?
    Someone built a framework in Ruby that makes putting up web apps with Ruby easy and fast. Who cares?
    That doesn't make it any better than Java.

    The last guy using J2EE on Earth?
    I hope I live that long.

    Many job positions?
    I couldn't find one job board that had more than a dozen.
    I found thousands for Java.
    I found more jobs for Ada at hotjobs.com
  24. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    What's the deal with everyone taking sides on this argument? Man alive! It's like I'm living at George Kastanza's parents house, "Its lycro-spandex...ITS NOT LYCRO-SPANDEX!" For the sake sanity, just look at the BRA!

    Ruby and RoR is getting so much attention because it is different. The Ruby is different than Java and the philosophy of web developement is different between RoR and J2EE. I suspect that the people (including me) who rave about how nice it is to work with RoR as a web platform are finally realizing that you don't need an J2EE compliant app server to create simple applications. And yes, you probably wouldn't use RoR to run Google (yet).

    Oh, and Geert, you may not want to use "...the entire application is only 300 lines longer (a 50% increase)..." as an argument for why something is better.

    Peace.
  25. Some more points[ Go to top ]

    I address the fact of bickering at my blog. Furthermore, if you read carefully, I said that "I have had more than a half dozen people independently contact me to do Ruby development".

    The Ruby on Rails market is small, but there are not a lot of people doing Ruby on Rails compared to Java either. Of course you are not going to see many job postings, I doubt any big corporations are interested in using Ruby in the least (though Google is looking for good Python developers, so you never know). The people that wanted Rails came to me, not the other way around.

    The point is that I have made my living in the past 5 months doing Ruby on Rails development because there is demand for it and not enough good talent available. Rails is hot and getting hotter. Expect to see more jobs like the ones posted here: http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/archives/category/jobs/
  26. Some more points[ Go to top ]

    Furthermore, if you read carefully, I said that "I have had more than a half dozen people independently contact me to do Ruby development".

    A couple of comments / questions:

    1) So you're one of the leading advoctaes of RoR and you've only gotten six offers. I'd keep that fact quiet, because it isn't positive.

    2) Nonetheless, there's obviously something really nice about working with RoR. I'm interested in hearing more about _that_ and less hand waving about the next big thing.

    3) How well does RoR work in and/or with J2EE? If RoR works well for the web part of an application, is there a Java impl of RoR, or a standard way for RoR to work with J2EE?

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Shared Memories for J2EE Clusters
  27. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    "Oh, and Geert, you may not want to use "...the entire application is only 300 lines longer (a 50% increase)..." as an argument for why something is better."

    Come on Big Cat Of Tuna, this is totally related to the original Ta-da List announcement that brags about the 600 lines of code (hence implying it is better). I never said RoR sucks or RIFE is better, my post simply tries to point out that line count comparison are indeed useless and that it's possible to write concise code in most solutions. Don't put words into my mouth.

    My last line of the post says it all: "By choosing the right tools for the job, Java can be concise too!"
  28. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    err...did I put words in your mouth? Let me take another look at your original post....nope...it says what it says.
  29. laszlo[ Go to top ]

    Geert, why laszlo? How are you finding it developing with it? Have got any posts on your experience with it?

    I downloaded a copy after they opened it a few months ago and played with it a little, but I backed out of using it for a client because it seemed to be very heavy and I wouldn't have been happy supporting it for them. It would be good to hear from someone who is really getting to terms with it...
  30. laszlo[ Go to top ]

    why laszlo? How are you finding it developing with it? Have got any posts on your experience with it?
    Hi, I posted a few entries about it: http://rifers.org/blogs/gbevin/laszlo
    Version 3.0b2 is a lot better and many of my initial gripes are resolved, I'll blog about it shortly.

    I did it in Laszlo since I wanted to have a real application to try the technology out. It being open-source and the demos being attractive made me look at it first. Bla-bla List was small enough to make the development possible in my off-hours. However, I'm also interested in other RIA technologies, which is why I created the server tier as an independent collection of REST services. Hence, I have a reusable base to try out other technologies and compare them objectively.
  31. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    I suspect that the people (including me) who rave about how nice it is to work with RoR as a web platform are finally realizing that you don't need an J2EE compliant app server to create simple applications.

    I believe that PHP developers have known that for years.

    It is neat to be able to write web applications quickly, but there are other ways to do that. Java Studio Creator is not something I personally use, but I do know that creating simple web applications it using is very fast, and easily done by a novice.

    Things that concern me with RoR are firstly the embedding of code in web pages. I condider this is a rather old-fashioned approach, and it is something that Java is moving away from, as it leads to maintenance problems in large projects. The other matter is debugging. With Java I can easily debug my J2EE JSP/Servlet/JSF code. Is there a good debugger for RoR? If not, the convenience of scripting quick web pages may be lost in the time spent in other areas of development.

    The dynamic nature of Ruby looks fun and interesting, but as the Ruby website says, its an 'Object Oriented Scripting Language'. I always get concerned when scripting languages are declared to be equivalent to languages like Java which are designed to be high performance and scalable.
  32. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    The other matter is debugging. With Java I can easily debug my J2EE JSP/Servlet/JSF code. Is there a good debugger for RoR? If not, the convenience of scripting quick web pages may be lost in the time spent in other areas of development.

    +1

    I would add to this: code completion, refactoring, and all of the other nice IDE features that IntelliJ and Eclipse has us hooked on.
  33. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    I believe that PHP developers have known that for years.

    The author of Rails used Java and PHP prior to creating his definitive Framework. And people who come from PHP seem to fall in love for Rails pretty quick.
    It is neat to be able to write web applications quickly, but there are other ways to do that. Java Studio Creator is not something I personally use, but I do know that creating simple web applications it using is very fast, and easily done by a novice.

    It's the way it should always be -- easy for the beginner and for the pro.
    Things that concern me with RoR are firstly the embedding of code in web pages. I condider this is a rather old-fashioned approach, and it is something that Java is moving away from, as it leads to maintenance problems in large projects. The other matter is debugging. With Java I can easily debug my J2EE JSP/Servlet/JSF code. Is there a good debugger for RoR? If not, the convenience of scripting quick web pages may be lost in the time spent in other areas of development.

    The embedded code is the minimum necessary. It almost disappears among so many HTML tags. The Controller and the Model do their roles, helping keep the View clean. It's hard to beat it, but you can use other template engines also. Ruby is full of them as well.

    Rails happen to use a nice and kind of unique debugger. You can set breakpoints and debug from the browser Window, it seems.
    The dynamic nature of Ruby looks fun and interesting, but as the Ruby website says, its an 'Object Oriented Scripting Language'. I always get concerned when scripting languages are declared to be equivalent to languages like Java which are designed to be high performance and scalable.

    Ruby is getting a really fast Virtual Machine in the next year or so. It means big performance improvements with probably some tradeoffs. It means that two years from now, Ruby will probably keep increasing its userbase. You are right that it's hard to let go of the full Java tools, but it's a tradeoff also. Web-Sites and Web-Apps seem to need more dynamic languages, without losing too much for that.
  34. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    The embedded code is the minimum necessary. It almost disappears among so many HTML tags.

    It is not the minimum necessary. In Java frameworks such as JSF there need be no embedded code; only tags. It looks like RoR has ignored the lessons learned over the years by Java developers. Embedded code is bad practice, no matter how you justify it.
    You can set breakpoints and debug from the browser Window, it seems.

    Do you have a link to this?
    The dynamic nature of Ruby looks fun and interesting, but as the Ruby website says, its an 'Object Oriented Scripting Language'. I always get concerned when scripting languages are declared to be equivalent to languages like Java which are designed to be high performance and scalable.
    Ruby is getting a really fast Virtual Machine in the next year or so. It means big performance improvements with probably some tradeoffs.

    You still have not addressed my point. Ruby is a scripting language. No matter how OOP it is, it was intended for small tasks. This is illustrated by features such as always open classes, which make scripting easy but large application design and maintenance a problem.

    This is a shame, as one of the languages Ruby was based on, Smalltalk, had all the advantages, but was also designed as a full application language.

    As for really fast virtual machine - I'll believe it when I see it, after all, it has taken close to a decade for Java to get up to C/C++ performance.
    You are right that it's hard to let go of the full Java tools, but it's a tradeoff also. Web-Sites and Web-Apps seem to need more dynamic languages, without losing too much for that.

    My experience is the exact opposite. Professional website development needs all the tools you can get, and I see no evidence that web-apps need more dynamic languages: they need performance and robustness. I don't see any great need to modify websites on the fly!

    The more I think about this, the more it troubles me. I see a great language - Ruby - being overhyped as the next great thing. Even languages designed from the start for web page scripting, such as PHP, still have problems with performance and scalability.

    If you are developing a serious commercial website, the time taken to script the logic is one of the least important concerns.
  35. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    It is not the minimum necessary. In Java frameworks such as JSF there need be no embedded code; only tags. It looks like RoR has ignored the lessons learned over the years by Java developers. Embedded code is bad practice, no matter how you justify it.

    I really wouldn't brag about this. I concur that a lightweight View is better, but Laszlo or other "rock solid" solutions aren't the norm even in Java.
    Do you have a link to this?

    Sorry, I tried to find one, but I couldn't. Breakpointer can be used as a separate module from Rails also, and the docs that I've seen only mentioned these features.
    You still have not addressed my point. Ruby is a scripting language. No matter how OOP it is, it was intended for small tasks. This is illustrated by features such as always open classes, which make scripting easy but large application design and maintenance a problem.

    I concur that Ruby is not on par with the mainstream languages. I only wish Microsoft or Sun could give it some Enterprise features and marketing. Oops, did I say marketing? :-)
    This is a shame, as one of the languages Ruby was based on, Smalltalk, had all the advantages, but was also designed as a full application language.

    Ruby is a tad different from Smalltalk, because Ruby is file based just like Java and other mainstream languages. Someone who loves Smalltalk, would really like that Ruby was more Smalltalkish. Someone who loves Lisp, would really like that Ruby was more Lispish. Someone who loves Java, would really like that Ruby was more Javaish. Someone who loves Ruby, couldn't give a damn to all the other languages. :-)
    As for really fast virtual machine - I'll believe it when I see it, after all, it has taken close to a decade for Java to get up to C/C++ performance.

    We aren't going to start a benchmark battle with the other languages. The goal is to have the fastest Ruby Virtual Machine, so it can become Ruby 2.0. See these results:
    http://www.atdot.net/yarv/bench_20041206.txt

    It's real already, but it still needs to become Ruby 2.0.
    My experience is the exact opposite. Professional website development needs all the tools you can get, and I see no evidence that web-apps need more dynamic languages: they need performance and robustness. I don't see any great need to modify websites on the fly!

    The more I think about this, the more it troubles me. I see a great language - Ruby - being overhyped as the next great thing. Even languages designed from the start for web page scripting, such as PHP, still have problems with performance and scalability.

    If you are developing a serious commercial website, the time taken to script the logic is one of the least important concerns.

    Unfortunately, Web-Apps have these needs where Java, DotNet, Ruby, Python, Perl, PHP, etc, all succeed to a certain extent. They are all similar in using more the Runtime Environment than C, C++, Delphi, etc. Dynamic languages just use the Runtime Environment without so much worry.
  36. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    It is not the minimum necessary. In Java frameworks such as JSF there need be no embedded code; only tags. It looks like RoR has ignored the lessons learned over the years by Java developers. Embedded code is bad practice, no matter how you justify it.
    I really wouldn't brag about this. I concur that a lightweight View is better, but Laszlo or other "rock solid" solutions aren't the norm even in Java.

    I'm not bragging about anything. It has taken a long time for Java Web frameworks to start to move away from embedded code. Component-based systems like JSF are the results.

    What I am saying is not that the situation with Java is that good - just that a system that proclaims itself as the 'next big thing' should be taking a more modern approach.
    You still have not addressed my point. Ruby is a scripting language. No matter how OOP it is, it was intended for small tasks. This is illustrated by features such as always open classes, which make scripting easy but large application design and maintenance a problem.
    I concur that Ruby is not on par with the mainstream languages. I only wish Microsoft or Sun could give it some Enterprise features and marketing. Oops, did I say marketing? :-)

    Just a minute - you are all putting forward Ruby as great because it is open source, then you are hoping that Sun or Microsoft will step forward to give it some Enterprise features? Don't you see some inconsistency?

    Also, I really don't want to use a scripting language for enterprise situations. It is moving beyond the design of the language.
    This is a shame, as one of the languages Ruby was based on, Smalltalk, had all the advantages, but was also designed as a full application language.
    Ruby is a tad different from Smalltalk, because Ruby is file based just like Java and other mainstream languages. Someone who loves Smalltalk, would really like that Ruby was more Smalltalkish. Someone who loves Lisp, would really like that Ruby was more Lispish. Someone who loves Java, would really like that Ruby was more Javaish. Someone who loves Ruby, couldn't give a damn to all the other languages. :-)

    Well, this is not backed up by people who promote Ruby - it is put forward has having Smalltalk features. So, obviously they do give a damn (excuse my language).
    As for really fast virtual machine - I'll believe it when I see it, after all, it has taken close to a decade for Java to get up to C/C++ performance.
    We aren't going to start a benchmark battle with the other languages.

    Well you had better enter that battle. Performance is a very important for large websites.
    Dynamic languages just use the Runtime Environment without so much worry.

    I have no idea what you mean by this. Perhaps you could explain why Java code has some sort of problem making use of runtime environments?
  37. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    What I am saying is not that the situation with Java is that good - just that a system that proclaims itself as the 'next big thing' should be taking a more modern approach.

    Let's say that Rails being the "next big thing", still has the backwards compatibility with what people were used to.
    Just a minute - you are all putting forward Ruby as great because it is open source, then you are hoping that Sun or Microsoft will step forward to give it some Enterprise features? Don't you see some inconsistency?

    Also, I really don't want to use a scripting language for enterprise situations. It is moving beyond the design of the language.

    I concur. After 13 years of progress, Ruby does not need Sun or Microsoft, but they need Ruby.
    Well, this is not backed up by people who promote Ruby - it is put forward has having Smalltalk features. So, obviously they do give a damn (excuse my language).

    Ruby was designed by one man, who stole many ideas from many languages -- Smalltalk is just one of them.
    Well you had better enter that battle. Performance is a very important for large websites.

    It's is important, but the client will only complain if the application is really slow. FastCGI and caching provide enough performance to compete for the same clients that the Java guys and the DotNet guys try to sell to.
    I have no idea what you mean by this. Perhaps you could explain why Java code has some sort of problem making use of runtime environments?

    It does not compete very well with the same Ruby features, that's all. Do you feel like a wizard when messing with the Runtime in Java? In Ruby, it's a day-to-day not-to-brag-about feature. In Ruby, people wouldn't be wizards because they make good use of Reflection and ByteCode Engineering. AOP? Injection? Buzzwords!
  38. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    Let's say that Rails being the "next big thing", still has the backwards compatibility with what people were used to.

    Show me a language that doesn't.
    I concur. After 13 years of progress, Ruby does not need Sun or Microsoft, but they need Ruby.

    Ah, because the entire foundations of these companies will collapse unless they address the immediate serious threat of Ruby?

    I think not.

    Again, Ruby is a fine language for what it was designed for. Statements like the above, which proclaim it as a panacea and the future of computing, are bad for Ruby, as they could lead to disappointment when the limits of the language become apparent.
    Well you had better enter that battle. Performance is a very important for large websites.
    It's is important, but the client will only complain if the application is really slow. FastCGI and caching provide enough performance to compete for the same clients that the Java guys and the DotNet guys try to sell to.

    It does not. You are missing the point. Performance is just not a matter of how fast the delivery of the web page is, it is often a matter of business logic performance. I have seen some high-volume websites that involved calculations collapse under load even when coded in a mature scripting language like cold fusion. Java deals with this kind of computation requirement.
    It does not compete very well with the same Ruby features, that's all. Do you feel like a wizard when messing with the Runtime in Java? In Ruby, it's a day-to-day not-to-brag-about feature. In Ruby, people wouldn't be wizards because they make good use of Reflection and ByteCode Engineering. AOP? Injection? Buzzwords!

    Most coding is boring. Most coding does not involve l33t hacking about with the runtime or cleverly adding new methods at classes code runs. I'm not saying these features aren't neat and fun, just that they are mostly irrelevant. Most designers aren't concerned with clever tricks or doing everything by reflection or AOP. They are concerned with writing robust and boring code that is reliable and fast. Where these things are needed in Java, there are neat ways to do this - Spring, for example.
  39. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    It was a great opportunity to talk with you about all this, Steve. Really great! Thanks.

    Some people become defensive much earlier than this, and you were a gentleman since the beggining.

    Thanks.
  40. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    It was a great opportunity to talk with you about all this, Steve. Really great! Thanks.

    Ruby is a great language, and I believe that more dynamic languages like Ruby will become more widely used for mainstream coding, particularly in combination with the JVM, as in JRuby/Jython/Groovy etc, where they can have the advantages of speed, security and seamless access to Java classes and libraries. My impression is that RoR will be a success, especially if 'marketed' right - it could certainly impact the PHP and ASP.
    Some people become defensive much earlier than this, and you were a gentleman since the beggining. Thanks.

    Actually, I thought I was a little harsh sometimes, but thanks for the compliment.
  41. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    Ruby is a great language, and I believe that more dynamic languages like Ruby will become more widely used for mainstream coding, particularly in combination with the JVM, as in JRuby/Jython/Groovy etc, where they can have the advantages of speed, security and seamless access to Java classes and libraries. My impression is that RoR will be a success, especially if 'marketed' right - it could certainly impact the PHP and ASP.

    I really agree with this sentiment. JRuby is more interesting (to me) than Ruby. I want to leverage the Java platform.
  42. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    Just a minute - you are all putting forward Ruby as great because it is open source, then you are hoping that Sun or Microsoft will step forward to give it some Enterprise features? Don't you see some inconsistency?

    I concur. After 13 years of progress, Ruby does not need Sun or Microsoft, but they need Ruby.

    Obviously, it's the next JBoss.

    p.s. Whatever you read into the above comment, that's probably what I intended.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Shared Memories for J2EE Clusters
  43. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    Just a minute - you are all putting forward Ruby as great because it is open source, then you are hoping that Sun or Microsoft will step forward to give it some Enterprise features? Don't you see some inconsistency?
    I concur. After 13 years of progress, Ruby does not need Sun or Microsoft, but they need Ruby.
    Obviously, it's the next JBoss.

    I tried to cut through the layers of meaning in that comment, but it got too gateau-like for me..

    Maybe JBoss is the next Ruby?

    Sean
  44. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    Actually, Amazon use Perl for their new development, and Google has a lot of Python.
  45. I can't believe the bickering![ Go to top ]

    Actually, Amazon use Perl for their new development, and Google has a lot of Python.

    "Actually" Amazon uses lots of different things, including Java.

    You can't find big companies that stick to one clean technology. They all seem to use a bit of everything.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  46. You should care.[ Go to top ]

    Is there a version of Prevayler for RoR? It'd make a perfect fit! ;>

    Regards,

    Leonardo
  47. You should care.[ Go to top ]

    Is there a version of Prevayler for RoR? It'd make a perfect fit!

    There is one for Ruby. Instiki, which is a Wiki clone was created by the Rails author, uses it:

    http://www.instiki.org
    http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/madeleine/
  48. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    First, I'm not Ruby advocate, second go to the mentioned above job site and search for "nuclear weapon" (I mean very rare speciality). How many results would you get?
    I don't think that language importance or potencial developer profits are measured by the number of job offers, moreover look at the quantity of VB jobs available.

    Regards,
    Theodore Kupolov
  49. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    I think you've missed my point.
    The job search thing was just an example of what the reality of the marketplace is. Java is currently a significant widely used technology. Ruby isn't. It is a niche language with a cult following. A language isn't good because it is popular or because it's easy. But a language's popularity can be a measure of it' importance.

    The Ruby folks are publishing comments like "In an attempt to hold the fort for Java as the troops are deserting left and right...". What is that based on? It makes Ruby sound like another frustrated flavour of the month. But Ruby isn't a flavour of the month. It's been around for 10 years. And there still aren't really any jobs using it.
  50. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    The Ruby folks are publishing comments like "In an attempt to hold the fort for Java as the troops are deserting left and right...". What is that based on? It makes Ruby sound like another frustrated flavour of the month.

    I think all this comes from a common, but mistaken, belief that scalable server-side application development is really easy, and can be done with a few quick scripts. A good example of this attitude was a recent Slashdot article which suggested that LAMP (Linux+Apache+MySQL+PHP) could replace J2EE.

    Of course, in reality, it doesn't work out like that. It is true that some aspects of J2EE (e.g. EJBs) may have been over-used, but in general, as applications get bigger, I find that developers increasingly discover why J2EE is like it is, and they look back sadly at their naivety in thinking that they could manage with MySQL and a few PERL scrips (or some other quick-fix language).
  51. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    The Ruby folks are publishing comments like "In an attempt to hold the fort for Java as the troops are deserting left and right...". What is that based on? It makes Ruby sound like another frustrated flavour of the month.
    I think all this comes from a common, but mistaken, belief that scalable server-side application development is really easy, and can be done with a few quick scripts. A good example of this attitude was a recent Slashdot article which suggested that LAMP (Linux+Apache+MySQL+PHP) could replace J2EE.Of course, in reality, it doesn't work out like that. It is true that some aspects of J2EE (e.g. EJBs) may have been over-used, but in general, as applications get bigger, I find that developers increasingly discover why J2EE is like it is, and they look back sadly at their naivety in thinking that they could manage with MySQL and a few PERL scrips (or some other quick-fix language).

    Actually, maybe you two are right. But only the technical people will hear this. The clients and many of the Rails fans will keep using it to produce what you can't with Java, that is, many Web-Sites and Web-Applications per year. Some Java big-corporations barely can produce two in a year. :-) Hear it from me: with Rails, some people will produce 12 Web-Apps per year. If in the future, this will not bring you down from the ivory tower, ASP.Net can finish the job. :-)
  52. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    Actually, maybe you two are right. But only the technical people will hear this. The clients and many of the Rails fans will keep using it to produce what you can't with Java, that is, many Web-Sites and Web-Applications per year. Some Java big-corporations barely can produce two in a year. :-) Hear it from me: with Rails, some people will produce 12 Web-Apps per year. If in the future, this will not bring you down from the ivory tower, ASP.Net can finish the job. :-)

    In my view, the people in the ivory tower are not the J2EE developers, who have to deal with real problems, but the script-hackers who think everything can be done with quick fixes.

    If you are concerned about how quickly a web application can be constructed, you need to look at JavaServer Faces and some visual design tools such as Java Studio Creator. You can create basic web applications as quickly as you can drag and drop visual components onto a page - no need for tedious command line tools or script coding as with RoR; you get live views of database-connected components, and you also get interactive debugging of JSF pages. If you consider web application coding to be a race, there are far faster techniques than RoR, and also techniques that are far simpler for novices.

    (I have to say that Studio Creator is not my preferred way of working - I prefer to hand-code pages)

    I must disagree with the statement that RoR can produce anything that Java can't, and I have to also take issue with 'two web-applications a year': web applications come in all sizes. Many small applications that consist mainly of static pages and a few forms are well-suited to script languages such as PHP, or even Ruby. Java tends to be used for high-volume websites that require a lot of business logic, or by far-sighted developers who realise that their website might eventually become high-volume or complex. Not all web applications are equivalent! I would agree that Java has not targetted the small web-application market as well as it could, but in principle such applications can be very quickly constructed with technologies such as JSP/JSTL or JSF. If you use such technologies your site will be able to grow and use more powerful Java frameworks if required. This is not true if you use Ruby or PHP. There could come a time when your website either needs more functionality or starts to degrade because of load. That is the time when, because you have neglected the so-called 'ivory tower' Java approach, you will be forced into an expensive re-write (I talk from personal experience - I have had to re-write other developers websites using Java technologies).
  53. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    (I have to say that Studio Creator is not my preferred way of working - I prefer to hand-code pages)

    Is that news? :-)

    I would say that we need some balance between Web-Components and HTML control. HTML control is what people are used to or really need in the end, but Web-Components can provide working pieces of code, though maybe you can't have maximum control of those. Rails allows both approaches, I think, because Rails allows so much already, that I haven't been able to keep track of the changes (I should).

    Anders Hejlsberg -- author of Turbo Pascal, Delphi and C#/DotNet--, believes that Components, more than Objects, unless the Objects are Components themselves, are the true reusable pieces of code -- I think the same. Though we need Frameworks. We need Web-Frameworks, Database Frameworks, etc. If, on top of these Frameworks, we can provide reusable Components, great!

    Under Rails, you will find Ruby, which is a language that empowers you and your code. Do I think that Rails is the ultimate Framework? No! I think people can do better! But if great people don't want to give Ruby a chance, Rails is going to rule while it can, by empowering who believes in it.

    I love this quote:
    "It's so simple to be happy, but so difficult to be simple." » Gururaj Ananda Yogi

    I want simplicity. I want happiness. Unfortunately to many, this means change! :-)

    Alan Kay, said something like:
    "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."

    I'm inventing my future, though I could work more silently on it, like others do. :-)

    Cheers.
  54. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    I would say that we need some balance between Web-Components and HTML control.

    You are looking at far too narrow a range of applications, and, I fear, hyping it far too much.

    Java and APIs such as JSF are not restricted to HTML. JSF was designed to be a general-purpose approach to writing server-side applications. Already JSF can be used to code HTML, SVG and WML. Other presentation technologies are likely to join this list.

    Ruby on Rails is a way to develop quick HTML applications. The future of server-side interfaces is going to be so much more than that, and it needs a powerful, mature, secure, fast and flexible language behind it - Java.

    No matter who you quote, a scripting language just won't deliver the power or performance needed.
  55. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    Java and APIs such as JSF are not restricted to HTML. JSF was designed to be a general-purpose approach to writing server-side applications. Already JSF can be used to code HTML, SVG and WML. Other presentation technologies are likely to join this list.

    "Can be used", just like Rails (ERuby or ERb) can be used for that, also. But if there isn't demand, people won't create such Components.
  56. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    Java and APIs such as JSF are not restricted to HTML. JSF was designed to be a general-purpose approach to writing server-side applications. Already JSF can be used to code HTML, SVG and WML. Other presentation technologies are likely to join this list.
    "Can be used", just like Rails (ERuby or ERb) can be used for that, also. But if there isn't demand, people won't create such Components.

    Such components exists.... The demand is growing.
  57. Hi
      My personal opinion is instead of having a wrapper over
      the well established languages like java VB c++ does we
      need to have a new 100 scripting languages.

       Giving more prebuilt templates like assembling /template driven programming will solve this speed coding issue
  58. 11 java dreams[ Go to top ]

    11 java dreams

    MY DREAM IS TO GET ALL THINGS IN JAVA SO THAT JAVA WILL BECOME A
    UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM.

    SUN HAVE DEVELOPED A COOL LANGUAGE AND I BELEIVE HAS TO BE MORE
    DYNAMIC IN END USER PERSPECTIVE LIKE VB FROM MICROSOFT

     1. WORAN
       Write Once Run Anywhere Natively
      No need of further motre stuffs like SWT


    2.JNI
      Easy stub creation with jni.A java programmer must be able to geneate java stub for jni call using
      plsin documntation
      
    3.ENHANCED COMMAND LINE OPTIONS
     java command line option --- like functional options create file ...like basic operation should be available ini the
     example package and must be able to call it

    4.MORE PLATFORM SPECIIFIC FUNCTIONS
          If they are able to give a access level to change the look and feel then they must
         provide platform specific functionalities too
      
     5.MORE PRACTICAL FUNCTIONS
      More support for common operation like date time operation ,report geneartion,pdf file creation
      Theser are all day to day operations used by all.I dont know why jave has ingherent support for pdfs,excel ...
      
    6.JDBC HAS TO BE WIDE:
    JDBC has to help to address the DBA related issues too.

    7.EMBEDDED RDBMS
    7.JDK has to be bundled with an embedded RDBMSDB which must be an optional download or addin feature.

    8.NEW SCRIPTING LANGUAGE FOR DSL
     New scripting language for java platform specific operations ..HI here iam bit mean to say we have to think
     OOPS is becoming a overburden in some conditions.like if microsft is going to make wizard based Domain specific
    langauges we too muct have a simple scripting way to acheive it..like the end user a business analyst even though
    he doesn't know java he must be able to use this like sql.[Most guys d0]

    9.USE OF OBJECT IDS
    imports can be replaced as[optional replacement] with object ids ..
    import 1:256886 2:343434 3:78789, At first it will be tough later it will be easy to use.

    10.TEST CASE AUTOGENERARTION
    Auto generation of testcase junit test case and running it .like if i type a code and compile it a test case
    has also to be generated with possible optional values .

    11. TEMPLATES
    SDK with standard templataes for specific funtionalities,specific projects .Time to Market must be reduced asap.
    This is the major adv.of .NET

    GK.SEZHIAN
  59. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    No matter who you quote, a scripting language just won't deliver the power or performance needed.

    J2EE does not necessarily deliver performance. Checkout SEDA (http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/proj/seda/) for example of high performance. Non-blocking I/O gives SEDA higher performance then both Apache and Flash.

    See a common performance problem with web applications is that many use thread/process per request which leads to a lot of time being spent on context-switching. IIRC, Tomcat for example gets to about 400-connections before dropping requests or returning errors. IMHO this is more likely going to be probelm then CPU time to execute business logic. Most business logic aren't that CPU intensive; just look out the number of Visual Basic applications.

    Do Google, Amazon, etc use J2EE to provide their main services? I don't think so. I have to look at Rails bit more closely, but I don't see why it can't compete with J2EE for many of the things J2EE is used for.
  60. wow![ Go to top ]

    WoW, yeah the website is using rife
    http://www.caosity.org/
    <good||bad>?:-)
    Welcome to cAos
    The caos Foundation is a community of open source developers, contributors and users working together to provide community assembled operating systems (CAOS). The Foundation currently hosts several main projects and offers resources to others. We understand the value of freely available Linux choices, and don't view our projects as competing, in-fact we share developers and leverage our resources together.
    <good||bad>?:-)
    WoW, it's great don't you think?
    .
  61. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    No matter who you quote, a scripting language just won't deliver the power or performance needed.
    J2EE does not necessarily deliver performance. Checkout SEDA (http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/proj/seda/) for example of high performance. Non-blocking I/O gives SEDA higher performance then both Apache and Flash. See a common performance problem with web applications is that many use thread/process per request which leads to a lot of time being spent on context-switching. IIRC, Tomcat for example gets to about 400-connections before dropping requests or returning errors.

    You are concentrating on I/O and not processing. Tomcat is not intended as a commercial app server.

    Many websites involve a lot more than a few pages and forms that need to be delivered to lots of connections.
    IMHO this is more likely going to be probelm then CPU time to execute business logic. Most business logic aren't that CPU intensive; just look out the number of Visual Basic applications.

    IMAE (In My Actual Experience) business logic does take time - I have had scripted websites overwhelmed by it. Also, you do realise that Visual Basic is now compiled and runs fast? (unlike Ruby)
    Do Google, Amazon, etc use J2EE to provide their main services? I don't think so.

    I have no idea. These are specialised services. I have seen Amazon advertise for J2EE developers.
    I have to look at Rails bit more closely, but I don't see why it can't compete with J2EE for many of the things J2EE is used for.

    Well that is a fairer statement. It may be able to do some of the things that J2EE can, in the same way that PHP does.
  62. Re: Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    No matter who you quote, a scripting language just won't deliver the power or performance needed.

    PHP: Yahoo, Friendster (LAMP)
    Perl: Livejournal (LAMP), TypePad (LAMP)
    Python: Google (LAP)

    It is complete ignorance and utterly devoid of substance to proclaim that a scripting language just won't deliver the power or performance needed. Yahoo is still the most popular website on the internet.

    Next time, back up your comments with substance and thought, don't regurgitate the marketing lies you hear from Sun and Microsoft.
  63. Re: Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    No matter who you quote, a scripting language just won't deliver the power or performance needed.
    PHP: Yahoo, Friendster (LAMP)Perl: Livejournal (LAMP), TypePad (LAMP)Python: Google (LAP)It is complete ignorance and utterly devoid of substance to proclaim that a scripting language just won't deliver the power or performance needed. Yahoo is still the most popular website on the internet.Next time, back up your comments with substance and thought, don't regurgitate the marketing lies you hear from Sun and Microsoft.

    It is not marketing lies, ignorance, or lack of thought - it is actual personal experience. I am not in the habit of regurgitating marketing. I have seen websites which involve complicated business logic totally overloaded because they used a scripting language. Translating one of these websites to Java technologies gave it the performance to cope.

    Scripting may work as a thin layer behind a request, especially if you have the money to buy lots of computing hardware.

    You will note that with many of the above sites, the interactions do not involve transactions and are reasonably simple. Also, one of the sites (LiveJournal) has been suffering from occasional downtime, and after a crash, took days to come back - hardly a good advert for the technology.
  64. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    i'm not a programmer. but, i'm interested in proramnning 4 fun. so, jobs.!count.:-)
    It's so nice to read about all these comments, very nice.
    at least, i know Ruby is'nt a bad comp's langtolearn hi:-)
    .
  65. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    i'm not a programmer. but, i'm interested in proramnning 4 fun. so, jobs.!count.:-)It's so nice to read about all these comments, very nice.at least, i know Ruby is'nt a bad comp's langtolearn hi:-).

    Actually, YOU would be the perfect Perl programmer...

    SCNR, Lars
  66. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    The Ruby folks are publishing comments like "In an attempt to hold the fort for Java as the troops are deserting left and right...". What is that based on? It makes Ruby sound like another frustrated flavour of the month.
    I think all this comes from a common, but mistaken, belief that scalable server-side application development is really easy, and can be done with a few quick scripts. A good example of this attitude was a recent Slashdot article which suggested that LAMP (Linux+Apache+MySQL+PHP) could replace J2EE.Of course, in reality, it doesn't work out like that. It is true that some aspects of J2EE (e.g. EJBs) may have been over-used, but in general, as applications get bigger, I find that developers increasingly discover why J2EE is like it is, and they look back sadly at their naivety in thinking that they could manage with MySQL and a few PERL scrips (or some other quick-fix language).
    Actually, maybe you two are right. But only the technical people will hear this. The clients and many of the Rails fans will keep using it to produce what you can't with Java, that is, many Web-Sites and Web-Applications per year. Some Java big-corporations barely can produce two in a year. :-) Hear it from me: with Rails, some people will produce 12 Web-Apps per year. If in the future, this will not bring you down from the ivory tower, ASP.Net can finish the job. :-)

    So you (with a thousand downloads, as you yourself stated earlier) think that RoR is more popular than J2EE and everything that surrounds it?

    That your 6 people (who together probably generated over half those downloads) constitute a larger userbase than the million people using J2EE?

    WOW, you are deluded even more than I thought you were from your earlier comments.
  67. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    So you (with a thousand downloads, as you yourself stated earlier) think that RoR is more popular than J2EE and everything that surrounds it?

    That your 6 people (who together probably generated over half those downloads) constitute a larger userbase than the million people using J2EE?

    WOW, you are deluded even more than I thought you were from your earlier comments.

    I accept your skeptical position. I too would doubt it, because you don't know 1/10 of the info and community enthusiasm that I know of.

    Only registered on the mailing list, there are about 700 people. Rails publicity started around january with an article on OReilly and a post on SlashDot. Since then, the number of people aware of Rails and using Rails has increased greatly.

    Artima_Buzz and the BlogSphere is known to mention Rails every now and then. Remember, it's a community effort. Community in a sense more Open Source than Java, just to make sure. I don't know the number of Rails contributors, but it could have been 30 and I wouldn't be surprised.

    ASP, PHP and Java have been the source of people coming to Rails. This is a big pool of people who need a definitive and easy solution to Web-Site programming.

    There are at least two more announcements that are yet to bring more people in: Rails 1.0 and the first Rails book. This is going to happen before june, for sure.

    The #rubyonrails channel on irc.freenode.net has had lots of activity since it was founded. It's about to top the Ruby channel: #ruby-lang .Right now, #rubyonrails has about 180 users.

    I'm not a Rails expert, nor even contribute to it, so I'm free to express my opinion, which could be wrong, for sure. So you better check these facts before republishing or using them for anything important. :-)

    Cheers.
  68. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    This is a big pool of people who need a definitive and easy solution to Web-Site programming.

    This is the kind of statement that I don't like. What is 'definitive' supposed to mean? Sure, RoR, like PHP, may be fine for relatively low volume and quick websites, but these are hardly 'definitive'. This is yet another 'Ruby can do everything' statement.
  69. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    This is a big pool of people who need a definitive and easy solution to Web-Site programming.
    This is the kind of statement that I don't like. What is 'definitive' supposed to mean? Sure, RoR, like PHP, may be fine for relatively low volume and quick websites, but these are hardly 'definitive'. This is yet another 'Ruby can do everything' statement.

    I define it as:
    - truly open source. No price tags attached to it whatsoever. You can change things wherever you want, and contribute back to the project if you so feel like.
    - truly cross-platform and cross-editor. People develop with Rails on MacOSX, Linux and Window, at least. You can use from the simplest text editor to Eclipse with the Ruby plugin. You don't need a high-tech editor/IDE with Ruby.

    That pretty much seems like one controlling his own life to me. :-)
  70. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    This is a big pool of people who need a definitive and easy solution to Web-Site programming.
    This is the kind of statement that I don't like. What is 'definitive' supposed to mean? Sure, RoR, like PHP, may be fine for relatively low volume and quick websites, but these are hardly 'definitive'. This is yet another 'Ruby can do everything' statement.
    I define it as:- truly open source. No price tags attached to it whatsoever.

    And how is this supposed to influence performance and reliability?
    You can change things wherever you want, and contribute back to the project if you so feel like.

    This is irrelevant: Do you seriously think that a typical website developer looks at a language and thinks: "Great! I can mess about with the source code of this scripting language!"? Of course not!
    truly cross-platform and cross-editor.People develop with Rails on MacOSX, Linux and Window, at least. You can use from the simplest text editor to Eclipse with the Ruby plugin. You don't need a high-tech editor/IDE with Ruby.That pretty much seems like one controlling his own life to me. :-)

    Again, nothing to do with 'definitive', and nothing to do with performance or reliability. You can do things in Java in exactly the same way, of course. The advantage of Java is that you can use an powerful IDE to develop, design and debug. Java gives you more choice.

    All I get from these statements is that you like Ruby and Rails. Liking something a lot does not mean that something is 'definitive'.
  71. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    This is irrelevant: Do you seriously think that a typical website developer looks at a language and thinks: "Great! I can mess about with the source code of this scripting language!"? Of course not!

    People do. It's easier to mess around with Ruby and Rails than with Java and C, that's for sure. People contribute adapters to their preferred databases which ends up helping other people, who can contribute bugfixes and patches. It's a community effort, so people do contribute. Open Source Java could enjoy this a little bit, and they are trying to with the latest license changes. But Ruby and Rails are Open Source since ever.
    Again, nothing to do with 'definitive', and nothing to do with performance or reliability. You can do things in Java in exactly the same way, of course. The advantage of Java is that you can use an powerful IDE to develop, design and debug. Java gives you more choice.

    Some people wouldn't consider using Java without the Powerful, though not Open Sourced, IDEs. Even the Open Source versions are not native, except for Eclipse on Windows that enjoys very good native support. Open Source is or is not a goal of the Java community?
    All I get from these statements is that you like Ruby and Rails. Liking something a lot does not mean that something is 'definitive'.

    I like it, though a definitive Web-Framework is a good strategy, when PHP does not know what to do (PHP4 to PHP5 OO), Java is not Open Source and is leaking professionals and projects to other competitive technologies (ASP.Net), Python and its procedural users do not get together to build a Rails like killer Framework (I know about Subway), Perl6 is on the way, with Parrot, but when? ASP is obsolete just like VB6. "J2EE is not fragmented" but has tons of sometimes proprietary (not truly Open Source) Frameworks, etc.

    I think a definitive answer is to use Rails -- if it's capable enough. Definitive is not a buzzword or acronym, at least. :-)
  72. Ruby? Who cares?[ Go to top ]

    This is irrelevant: Do you seriously think that a typical website developer looks at a language and thinks: "Great! I can mess about with the source code of this scripting language!"? Of course not!
    People do. It's easier to mess around with Ruby and Rails than with Java and C, that's for sure.

    You are missing the point again. I'm not talking about hackers. I'm talking about typical website developers.
    Open Source Java could enjoy this a little bit, and they are trying to with the latest license changes.

    I'm not interested in hacking about with Java source code. Neither are the vast majority of developers.
    Some people wouldn't consider using Java without the Powerful, though not Open Sourced, IDEs. Even the Open Source versions are not native, except for Eclipse on Windows that enjoys very good native support.

    You will find that a large number of Java developers are still using vi and emacs... much to my amazement.
    Open Source is or is not a goal of the Java community?

    Why should I care? This has no revelance to the performance of my websites.
    All I get from these statements is that you like Ruby and Rails. Liking something a lot does not mean that something is 'definitive'.
    I like it, though a definitive Web-Framework is a good strategy, when PHP does not know what to do (PHP4 to PHP5 OO), Java is not Open Source and is leaking professionals and projects to other competitive technologies (ASP.Net),

    This is a confused statement. You are implying that Java is 'leaking' developers to ASP.Net because it is not open source?? Well, ASP.NET is not open source either...
    "J2EE is not fragmented" but has tons of sometimes proprietary (not truly Open Source) Frameworks

    And also has plenty of open source frameworks - struts, JSF, Tapestry etc.

    So RoR is better because you don't have choice?
    etc.I think a definitive answer is to use Rails -- if it's capable enough. Definitive is not a buzzword or acronym, at least. :-)

    I can't see this debate progressing. You keep mentioning 'open source' as being some major advantage. It isn't. only a very small number of professional developers actually want to hack about with the source code of what they are using. Again, your arguments seem to centre around the fact that you like Ruby - fair enough, but that is no reason why I should consider it robust or fast enough for my use.
  73. Because ...[ Go to top ]

    Its a useful arrow to have in your quiver.

    Number of jobs != worth of a language.
  74. Be careful with code generators[ Go to top ]

    Microsoft .NET is known for taking the developer's input and generate code (VB, C#, HTML) automatically. I am seeing the similar approach taken by Ruby on Rails. This approach is certainly valid, but as many experienced developers might suspect, code generators do have some major issues. The complexity is often hidden inside the generated code which the developers are expected to maintain and modify later. In addition, once you manually edit the generated code, the generator often don't work with your changes. Maintainability and customizability are crucial to most software projects. My my own experience, although a code generator can save some time during initial development, once you want to go outside of their narrow default behaviors, you will find yourself spend more time trying to get around it.
  75. Alas, more FUD.

    Rails is NOT based on code generation.

    It's based on a mix of inheritance, reflection, smart defaults, and class methods. Because of how Ruby is structured, that can be a potent mix ... somewhat comparable to Aspect Oriented Programming in the Java world, and quite concise.

    The Ruby paradigm, and its an admirable one, is that the code should be the focus of your development efforts. Java is coming back to that view, after a large detour into the XML configuration world, with annotations.

    It's natural to be a little scared of new developments. It's painful to think that your exclusive, hard-won skills may be even a little bit obsolete. When I see Flex, Laszlo or Rails, my stomach does a little flip-flop in terms of all the effort I've put into Tapestry. But the reality is that *all* of these approaches are transitory (I'm sure we'll all be doing something quite different in five years), and we should embrace change, learn from other's efforts, and create even better frameworks and applications.

    For example, there may come a time when much Tapestry work is done using Trails (a Tapestry/Rails/Spring/Hibernate hybrid). Trails may never have offer quite the same developer productivity as Rails, but it is still a gateway into full-blown Tapestry and J2EE development.
  76. Alas, more FUD.Rails is NOT based on code generation.

    I have not tried Rails myself, this is what I read from the tutorial, which made me categorize it as a code generator.

    This script generates a range of files needed to create a complete application, including a controller, views,
    layouts, and even a style sheet:
    app\controllers\categories_controller.rb
    app\helpers\categories_helper.rb
    app\views\categories\edit.rhtml
    app\views\categories\list.rhtml
    app\views\categories\new.rhtml
    app\views\categories\show.rhtml
    app\views\layouts\categories.rhtml
    public\stylesheets\scaffold.css
  77. Rails is NOT based on code generation.

    I downloaded RoR and did tutorials.
    It generated lot's of code and html files.
    So i'm confused with your statement.
    What do you mean when you says it is not based on code generation ?
  78. No code generation[ Go to top ]

    Do you expect to get paid for using generated code?

    No!

    Then, when Rails generates any code for you, it's to help you accomplish the job faster. It means that though Ruby and Rails are concise, you still get a helping hand in getting the needed directories, files, and minimum code for free. But after that, you are supposed to create more files and substitute the generated code ("scaffold") to finish the job and then get the paycheck. Rails will always try to help you, but you need to first install it and read some more about it. Unfertunately, these steps Rails can't "generate". :-) Though once you get used to it, you will find that you can install Rails under 1 minute, including the downloading step.

    It's too different in every level to the J2EE way.
  79. No code generation[ Go to top ]

    Though once you get used to it, you will find that you can install Rails under 1 minute, including the downloading step.It's too different in every level to the J2EE way.

    http://rife-jumpstart.dev.java.net/

    Come on man, I'll give you the instructions for a 'J2EE way' installation (which happens to not be EJB-oriented). I'll even type it out 'the long way'.

    * download and install at least a 1.4 JDK
    * download and install Ant (if you don't have CodeGuide, IDEA, or Netbeans, whose project files are included)
    * download the RIFE jumpstart
    * unzip rife-jumpstart-1.0rc1.zip
    * cd rife-jumpstart-1.0rc1
    * ant run

    ... done

    You can edit most files without restarting, even the Java element implemention files. Normally for the Java backend files, you'd need a restart when running Ant. However, if you're use CodeGuide, IDEA or Eclipse, you can use the JVM's hotswap feature or Eclipse's method-level compilation feature and continue developing without restart.

    From here onwards I can use all the wonderful features of modern Java IDEs and the installation took ... 1 minute?
  80. No code generation[ Go to top ]

    "From here onwards I can use all the wonderful features of modern Java IDEs and the installation took ... 1 minute?"

    You need Ruby and RubyGems installed. See the "get used to it" above. Ruby actually can be packaged in any way a Linux Distro or Windows folks want.

    On Windows for the sake of similarity with Java and because most people use it anyway:

    1- Download and install Ruby (12MBs, sorry. But a direct link and includes many important libraries, like REXML, which is much more handy than the Java offers!): http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/2407/ruby182-14.exe

    After installing it, open a "command prompt" and see if it works:

    C:\>ruby -v
    ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [i386-mswin32]

    In any case, make sure c:\ruby\bin is in the PATH, but the installer does this for you already on NT.

    IRB is the interactive Ruby:

    C:\>irb
    irb(main):001:0> 'hello friends'
    => "hello friends"

    2- Download and install RubyGems, which can be used to install and manage hundreds of Java libraries, including Rails: http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/3464/rubygems-0.8.8.zip

    By running:

    C:\rubygems-0.8.8>ruby setup.rb

    You install RubyGems.

    The third step is the one that I said would take you less than a minute. But the step 2 doesn't take many seconds either.

    3- By running:

    C:\rubygems-0.8.8>gem install rails

    It will update the packages list and will start installing the Rails dependencies. Just go answering "yes" when in doubt. :-)

    ...
    Successfully installed rails-0.10.1
    Successfully installed rake-0.4.15
    Successfully installed activesupport-1.0.1
    Successfully installed activerecord-1.8.0
    Successfully installed actionpack-1.5.1
    Successfully installed actionmailer-0.7.1
    Successfully installed actionwebservice-0.6.0
    ...

    What dependencies, huh? Rake is like ANT. ActiveSupport is like ApacheCommon. ActiveRecord is ORM. ActionPack I don't know. ActionMailer is obvious. ActionWebServices sounds great.

    Ok, I think this thread might REST now. :-) Thanks for your time. I hope you enjoyed knowning a little bit more about Ruby.

    Cheers.
  81. Software development management is increasingly dependent on complexity management, a large part of which consists of trust management.

    Enterprise applications largely use platforms in which the development organization has made a strategic commitment. To enter this field is not child's play. Entering this field requires selling both to developers and development managers.

    Building trust in development managers is not best achieved by indulging in hyperbole. Only make claims for which you can make a strong case. Back up any suprising claims by data and impartial analysis.

    Don't make the mistakes of Zope, which was sold to me as an enterprise tool, but which in practise lacked working Oracle and LDAP support and did not support transactional rollback in its internal object database.
  82. Who Cares about Ruby on Rails? Based on the traffic of this thread: a lot of folks care.

    RoR seems to have a lot more hype than adoption. But, then again so did Java in the early days. Hype is sometimes followed by adoption. Sometimes it is not. (I should say often times it is not. Or should I say mostly it is not!)

    This is not to say RoR is not useful or that it is just hype. I am sure it is useful.

    RIFE seems interesting and so does Trails. The more interesting conversation seems to be: "Is there ways to make what we do simpler?". RoR, RIFE, and Trails are all exploring this topic. I want to keep an open mind to the topic in general.

    I don't know the status of JRuby. If JRuby is real, wouldn't RoR vs. J2EE be a moot point? Couldn't RoR run with and integrate with a J2EE application?

    I am not an expert on RoR, but doesn't Trails do a lot of the same stuff with Java (Hibernate, Spring and Tapestry).

    This begs the question...

    Is there something about RoR that shows that Ruby is a better language than Java for developing web applications?Is there something about Java that would make developing the Rails framework impossible in Java? If so, what?

    There are features of Ruby I do like. The feature I am thinking of is continuation and block closures. Groovy provides a lot of the same features as Ruby and Python in a very Java-centric manner (http://www.jroller.com/page/RickHigh/20050315#is_the_groovy_language_groovy).

    Looking into RoR is on my list. It is just not very high on my list. The Java world seems to be very active, and there are always lots of things to look into.

    I have not used Ruby to do any project work, but I have used Python quite a bit. I take exception to the statement that Ruby is more OO than Python. To be honest, I don't know why I take exception to this per se. :o) In Python everything is an object, and it supports inheritance. How can Ruby be more OO than Python? I digress.

    I currently do nearly all of my programming in Java. I like other languages, but I also really like the JVM platform. The tools do not support other languages well on the JVM platform. If Groovy had all of the tool support that Java has (with Eclipse, IntelliJ and NetBeans) and it shipped with J2SE, it would do well.
  83. Is there something about RoR that shows that Ruby is a better language than Java for developing web applications?Is there something about Java that would make developing the Rails framework impossible in Java? If so, what?

    All Rails, including the community, shows that Ruby is in every level better than Java for creating Web-Applications.

    Little problems with Java:
    - J2EE is fragmented.
    - J2EE is overcomplex.
    - J2EE faces great competition from ASP.Net.
    - Java is not Open Source as Ruby and Rails are.
    - The Java libraries are overcomplex and nobody can change that, it seems. Even with a nicer syntax, the same libraries are still there.
    - Java the syntax is way more verbose, which makes concise solutions only a dream. You can't change this most of the time.
    - JRuby is an "outlaw" in the Java land, so don't count on it. :-)
    - Java is not as dynamic as Ruby by default, which means that it's harder to redefine Java to be more Web and Database friendly, like Rails does with Ruby.
    - Rails has no compilation step, which is not necessary on the Web with its latency.
    - Do you trust that the JCP is going to change anything in a short time to be relevant in your job?
    - Have you heard of Reflection and bytecode engineering? In Ruby we just get that by default. AnObject.send(:ok?, true)

    Sorry but I couldn't keep it language-wise, because things need to be considered in all levels.
    Looking into RoR is on my list. It is just not very high on my list. The Java world seems to be very active, and there are always lots of things to look into.

    I remember that feeling, because Java was my love once. :-)
    I have not used Ruby to do any project work, but I have used Python quite a bit. I take exception to the statement that Ruby is more OO than Python. To be honest, I don't know why I take exception to this per se. :o) In Python everything is an object, and it supports inheritance. How can Ruby be more OO than Python? I digress.

    In Ruby, instance variables are private and methods are public by default. In Ruby it's rare to see the "self" keyword. Ruby has Mixins, which are useful to avoiding having to support multiple inheritance. You can do all this and more in Python, but Ruby by default is better in this sense. Python is popular with the procedural people as well, which is not a good OO sign. Ruby has a nice core library -- much nicer than Python's.
    currently do nearly all of my programming in Java. I like other languages, but I also really like the JVM platform. The tools do not support other languages well on the JVM platform. If Groovy had all of the tool support that Java has (with Eclipse, IntelliJ and NetBeans) and it shipped with J2SE, it would do well.

    I doubt it.
  84. All Rails, including the community, shows that Ruby is in every level better than Java for creating Web-Applications.

    Wow! Better in every level. That is quite a claim.
    Little problems with Java:- J2EE is fragmented.

    I have no idea what this means.
    J2EE is overcomplex.

    Not at all. It just is full-featured. With tools such a Spring it can be pretty simple. I have already mentioned that you can create J2EE applications in Java Studio Creator in just a few minutes using visual design.
    J2EE faces great competition from ASP.Net.

    And is competing very successfully.
    Java is not Open Source as Ruby and Rails are.

    This has no relevance to how useful the language is as a web development tool.
    The Java libraries are overcomplex and nobody can change that, it seems. Even with a nicer syntax, the same libraries are still there.

    I have never understood this criticism. The libraries are certainly not complex - just rich. You can use as little or as much of the libraries as you wish.
    Java the syntax is way more verbose, which makes concise solutions only a dream.

    When developing a large commercial website, the conciseness of the language is irrelevant. What matters is performance, and the tools to debug, test and maintain the application.
    Java to be more Web and Database friendly

    With tools such as JSP/JSF, and Hibernate/JDO, I have never found Java to be unfriendly to these technologies.
    Rails has no compilation step, which is not necessary on the Web with its latency.

    This is only important if you intend changing your entire web source every few minutes. Java-based pages such as JSPs do compile, but only once, and then they give you C/C++ performance, which is often necessary on the web!
    Do you trust that the JCP is going to change anything in a short time to be relevant in your job?

    Yes, and they have and do. Of course, there is nothing to stop you using non-JCP technologies and APIs.
    Have you heard of Reflection and bytecode engineering?

    Of course - these are vital parts of most of my applications.
    In Ruby, instance variables are private and methods are public by default. In Ruby it's rare to see the "self" keyword. Ruby has Mixins, which are useful to avoiding having to support multiple inheritance. You can do all this and more in Python, but Ruby by default is better in this sense.
    This does not in any way justify the statement that Ruby is any more OO than Python.
    If Groovy had all of the tool support that Java has (with Eclipse, IntelliJ and NetBeans) and it shipped with J2SE, it would do well.
    I doubt it.

    Why? Groovy is getting very good tool support - the Eclipse plugin is nice, can be easily integrated with Java, and compiles to Java class files so that it can run fast.

    Little problem with Ruby:

    It was designed as a scripting language. Serious web applications need a lot more than just scripting. I have often seen the mess that can arise when languages designed for small applications are used beyond their capabilities. If Ruby wanted to be like Smalltalk, it should have included the full-application features.
  85. Little problem with Ruby:It was designed as a scripting language. Serious web applications need a lot more than just scripting. I have often seen the mess that can arise when languages designed for small applications are used beyond their capabilities. If Ruby wanted to be like Smalltalk, it should have included the full-application features.

    Web-Apps require that the application reside on memory, at least temporarily. Rails too can use caching just fine, like all the other solutions. Ruby, once loaded in memory, is executable all the way. Many Ruby routines are written in C. I consider Ruby a Dynamic Language. You consider it a Scripting Language. I can live with that. :-)
  86. Ruby, once loaded in memory, is executable all the way.

    I would be interested to hear of a language in use for website development that loaded non-executable code into memory.
    Many Ruby routines are written in C.

    This backs up my point about performance. Java has reached a level of maturity where it is fast enough for all code to be in Java - there is no real need to drop out to C or C++ for performance reasons.
    I consider Ruby a Dynamic Language. You consider it a Scripting Language. I can live with that. :-)

    I don't consider it anything. I am quoting off of the Ruby website.

    Ruby is an elegant scripting language. Promoting it as a general-purpose solution and stretching it beyond it's design does it a disservice, in my view.

    There may well be a role for RoR in the fast production of small and lightweight low-volume websites, and Ruby on Rails may eventually evolve to have increased capabilities and performance but I find current comparisons with the entire richness, power and (occasional) complexity of J2EE rather embarrassing, to be honest.
  87. Steve, I couldn't have said it better myself.
  88. Steve, I couldn't have said it better myself.

    +1
  89. What does "+1" signify?
  90. What does "+1" signify?

    Literally translated, it means, "Me, too!". It is a posting technique, perfected by AOL subscribers in the 1990's, of taking up space in a threaded discussion without actually contributing anything to the discussion.
  91. "Who Cares? Based on the traffic of this thread... a lot of folks"

    Well... when you are using & loving Java, lots of peoples comes on your web site to tell you "Java is bad, try php", "Java is bad, try .net", "Java is bad, try ruby", Java is bad, try python"...

    The traffic of thread is sometimes proprotionnal to the "stupidity" of the news ;) (even if ruby is nice)

    Stéphane TRAUMAT
    JOnAS Live author
  92. My 1.5 cents[ Go to top ]

    http://www.thechanfam.net/wordpress/?p=28
  93. HYPE[ Go to top ]

    Well done. Including the web site, well done hyped :) Half-way this thread, I decided to instantly scroll down because I started to get this Scientology feel :) Was afraight to loose a lot of time and get converted on a non-factual basis.

    Seriously though, I'll give it a try as soon as I've got the time. Let's see if there's actual reason to this hype.

    Oh, one point of critic. The lack of a Linux installer (at least I haven't found one). When trying to promote a product that's to be used by the developers community, a Linux installer to enable a quick try is vital.
  94. HYPE[ Go to top ]

    .Oh, one point of critic. The lack of a Linux installer (at least I haven't found one). When trying to promote a product that's to be used by the developers community, a Linux installer to enable a quick try is vital.

    Herecy. All a linux user should ever need is a tarball.
  95. HYPE[ Go to top ]

    Herecy. All a linux user should ever need is a tarball.
    :-)
  96. Pet-projects are always the greatest and best under the sun. That is until the S**T hits the fan and gravity becomes a reality.
  97. Pet-projects are always the greatest and best under the sun. That is until the S**T hits the fan and gravity becomes a reality.

    Just like 80% of the Java projects? Cool...
  98. Pet-projects are always the greatest and best under the sun. That is until the S**T hits the fan and gravity becomes a reality.
    Just like 80% of the Java projects? Cool...

    I don't think comments like this help your argument. This is a shame, as Ruby is a good language for what it was designed for.

    If RoR is good enough it will be be successful. Hype and rubbishing Java give the impression that it is merely a hackers tool with a small but overly enthusiastic fanbase.
  99. Pet-projects are always the greatest and best under the sun. That is until the S**T hits the fan and gravity becomes a reality.
    Just like 80% of the Java projects? Cool...
    I don't think comments like this help your argument. This is a shame, as Ruby is a good language for what it was designed for. If RoR is good enough it will be be successful. Hype and rubbishing Java give the impression that it is merely a hackers tool with a small but overly enthusiastic fanbase.

    Touche.
  100. I have skimmed over this thread, and I have a few comments to make.

    1) What is a scripting language? I see people saying that Ruby can be as reliable as Java because it's a scripting language. Now, what does this mean exactly? It used to mean that languages who had an interpreted implementation were scripting languages and those that were compiled were programming language. However, some language came to mess that up, namely Common Lisp (who has both), Smalltalk, Java, Perl, Python who compile to byte-code. Now, what does it mean that Ruby is a scripting language? Sure, at first it was to be used as a Perl replacement, but since it has pretty much the same features as Smalltalk, and that it is being used for tasks larger than simple 20 line scripts, can't we consider it a programming language? So again, what makes Ruby a scripting language compared to Java?

    2) Some people talk about scalability. I'm pretty sure that Java has the upper hand here, although I wouldn't know for sure, because I don't program in Java. However, what is the ratio of web applications where you need multiple servers versus applications where a single one is okay? 1:10? 1:100? More? If you are building an intranet for your company, unless you work in a large corporation with thousands of employees accessing the intranet simultaneously, I think a single server is more than enough. I work in a school system, we have an intranet (not built in Rails nor Java) and it only needs one server to accomodate everyone. So before playing the scalability card, wouldn't it be best to see if your project will actually benefit from that?

    3) Tools. The Java people mention the myriad of frameworks available to them, the advanced IDEs that they have, etc. Well, we can't really beat you there, vim is good, but sometimes I would really like Ruby's support on Eclipse to be equal to Java's. But then again, I'd probably prefer a Smalltalk-like environment for Ruby ;) But we should not forget that with Ruby's terser syntax, sometimes you don't need those tools as badly as you would in Java. Let's look at accessors for instance. In Ruby creating accesors for three instance variables is quite easy: attr_accessor :job, :address, :phone . On the other hand, to accomplish the same thing in Java, you would need to create 6 methods (setJob, getJob, setAddress, getAddress, setPhone, getPhone), so it's nice to have that task automated by the tools you use.

    4) Popularity and jobs. Java was created by a corporation, it has been heavily marketted, while Ruby never had financial backup nor articles in magazines that PHB's read, so it shouldn't be a surprise that Java is more popular than Ruby in the work-place and that the number of jobs for Java is greater. Things Ruby has going for it are an open, friendly community, a nice, powerful and easy language and some very new exciting project, with Rails being the most popular one. Many of us Rubyists are hoping that Rails can really put Ruby on the map, and I think it will. It's not even been a year since the first release (June 24th, 2004) and it's already something that a lot of web developers have heard of and that many are already using.
  101. So again, what makes Ruby a scripting language compared to Java?

    What makes Ruby a scripting language is because that is what the creator of the language calls it. I quote from the Ruby website:

    "Ruby is the interpreted scripting language for quick and easy object-oriented programming"
    2) Some people talk about scalability. I'm pretty sure that Java has the upper hand here, although I wouldn't know for sure, because I don't program in Java. However, what is the ratio of web applications where you need multiple servers versus applications where a single one is okay? 1:10? 1:100? More? If you are building an intranet for your company, unless you work in a large corporation with thousands of employees accessing the intranet simultaneously, I think a single server is more than enough. I work in a school system, we have an intranet (not built in Rails nor Java) and it only needs one server to accomodate everyone. So before playing the scalability card, wouldn't it be best to see if your project will actually benefit from that?

    Scalability is not just being able to run on multiple servers, it's being able to handle a heavy load even on a single server, and being able to form the basis of all the logic in an application, not just web scripting.

    Let me give you an example of what Java can do: A website can be hosted on Tomcat, developed in pure Java and run on a pure Java database such as HSQLDB.

    Show me a system where Ruby can stand alone, and does not hang off of Apache, and uses a high-performance database written in Ruby, then I will call it scalable!
    4) Popularity and jobs. Java was created by a corporation, it has been heavily marketted,

    My memory of the situation is that Java gained its initial popularity simply because it was a free technology that developers could play with, and it provided new functionality that had not been provided before - applets, binary portability between operating systems, etc. Much of the initial popularity was by word-of-mouth, as it was the cool new thing for developers! Sound familiar?
  102. [Quote]Show me a system where Ruby can stand alone, and does not hang off of Apache, and uses a high-performance database written in Ruby, then I will call it scalable![/Quote]

    By that definition, C/C++ is way too scalable than Java. So, why on this planet is Java is doing so well. When Java was new, it was not famous for hard-core performance , cleaner syntax and nice memory-management were the fore-most features Sun marketed on other than the write once, run every where.
    I think Ruby on Rails has more similarities with that sort of evolution, Ruby code is cleaner and concise. With OO-concepts entrenched in Ruby, it is more than scriting language.

    Isnt it kind of interesting, that the most innovative websites of this planet use non-java and non-microsoft solutions. Hope they have pondered about scalability more than we do. (I dont know any database developed in Python or PHP or Perl)
  103. Show me a system where Ruby can stand alone, and does not hang off of Apache, and uses a high-performance database written in Ruby, then I will call it scalable!
    By that definition, C/C++ is way too scalable than Java.

    No. This was true a few years ago, but not these days. Now Java can reach C/C++ speeds, which is why you can write high-performance applications (such as databases) in it.

    I think you may need to do a bit more research into the current state of Java if you are going to make statements like this.
    So, why on this planet is Java is doing so well.

    Because it really, really is cross-platform and portable and it is fast. The reasons for the success of Java are no mystery.
    When Java was new, it was not famous for hard-core performance , cleaner syntax and nice memory-management were the fore-most features Sun marketed on other than the write once, run every where.

    True, performance took a long time coming, but now it is there.
    I think Ruby on Rails has more similarities with that sort of evolution, Ruby code is cleaner and concise. With OO-concepts entrenched in Ruby,

    Sorry, but there is nothing pioneering about Ruby. It is yet another scripting language, fitting somewhere between Python and Groovy. Unlike the languages it is based on (such as Smalltalk), it was not a revolutionary step forward. There is no 'wow' factor like when Java was introduced.
    it is more than scriting language.

    If you Ruby supporters are going to keep saying that, perhaps you should amend the Ruby website? It keeps saying that Ruby is a scripting language every time I read it...
    Isnt it kind of interesting, that the most innovative websites of this planet use non-java and non-microsoft solutions.

    An interesting statement. I wonder how you define 'innovative'? I wonder how many of the websites are in Ruby?
  104. Sorry, but there is nothing pioneering about Ruby. It is yet another scripting language, fitting somewhere between Python and Groovy. Unlike the languages it is based on (such as Smalltalk), it was not a revolutionary step forward. There is no 'wow' factor like when Java was introduced.

    Sorry, but what was the "wow" factor about Java again? Object orientation? SketchPad, Simula, Smalltalk, Objective-C, Common Lisp, Eiffel, C++, etc. Garbage collection? Lisp, Smalltalk. Portable code? Smalltalk and Lisp again. Applets? Probably, but those have been out of fashion since 1997 except for games on Yahoo!, you don't see them quite that often.

    I'm thinking that Java just got lucky: it was exactly what corporations were craving for at the right time. It helped that it built upon "wow" features of previous languages and that it was made available free of cost. Marketing just settled the whole thing in my mind.

    Of course, that's my vision of this whole Java thing. But I believe that, like Java, Rails is a web framework, available for free that does what (most, many) programmers want now: easy-to-build db-backed web applications. Ruby may be slower than Java, or less "enterprise-ready" (I've never been exactly sure what that meant), but so what? It works, and people like it. And Java was slow and now you claim that it can sometimes match the speed of C/C++? Well, maybe Ruby can do that too with its next-generation VM (YARV).
  105. Sorry, but what was the "wow" factor about Java again? Object orientation? SketchPad, Simula, Smalltalk, Objective-C, Common Lisp, Eiffel, C++, etc. Garbage collection? Lisp, Smalltalk. Portable code?

    Sure, Smalltalk and LISP did this ages ago. The 'wow' of Java was that it gave all this, but was free. Smalltalk, for example, priced itself out of the reach of the average developer years before (much to my disappointment). The combination of free and cross-platform (even after compilation) was a major advance.
    I'm thinking that Java just got lucky: it was exactly what corporations were craving for at the right time. It helped that it built upon "wow" features of previous languages and that it was made available free of cost.

    Exactly - it combined the 'wow' bits of previous languages and was free...
    Rails is a web framework, available for free that does what (most, many) programmers want now: easy-to-build db-backed web applications.

    Yes, but that also describes PHP, JSP, ASP.NET, JSF (Studio Creator)...

    Rails is just yet another web framework...
    Ruby may be slower than Java, or less "enterprise-ready" (I've never been exactly sure what that meant),

    I take "enterprise-ready" to mean that is is a proven system with demonstrated robustness, security and scalability.
    Well, maybe Ruby can do that too with its next-generation VM (YARV).

    Maybe. But you can't start developing now based on promises and maybes.. (well, many developers do, but it is a bad idea). To be honest, I have my doubts. Getting Java and .NET fast took a huge amount of work.
  106. Sorry, but there is nothing pioneering about Ruby. It is yet another scripting language, fitting somewhere between Python and Groovy. Unlike the languages it is based on (such as Smalltalk), it was not a revolutionary step forward. There is no 'wow' factor like when Java was introduced.
    Sorry, but what was the "wow" factor about Java again? Object orientation? SketchPad, Simula, Smalltalk, Objective-C, Common Lisp, Eiffel, C++, etc. Garbage collection? Lisp, Smalltalk. Portable code? Smalltalk and Lisp again. Applets? Probably, but those have been out of fashion since 1997 except for games on Yahoo!, you don't see them quite that often.I'm thinking that Java just got lucky: it was exactly what corporations were craving for at the right time. It helped that it built upon "wow" features of previous languages and that it was made available free of cost. Marketing just settled the whole thing in my mind.Of course, that's my vision of this whole Java thing. But I believe that, like Java, Rails is a web framework, available for free that does what (most, many) programmers want now: easy-to-build db-backed web applications. Ruby may be slower than Java, or less "enterprise-ready" (I've never been exactly sure what that meant), but so what? It works, and people like it. And Java was slow and now you claim that it can sometimes match the speed of C/C++? Well, maybe Ruby can do that too with its next-generation VM (YARV).


    As a former C/C++ Unix to Visual C++ to Java developer, I can say that Java, while not necessarily innovative, delivered the goods.

    I had to work for a couple of years support "portable" C/C++ apps, for example, and Java delivered pretty much hassle-free portability. I still remember my first project, a J2EE project for a wireless carrier who is still around and they had a what proved to be a temporarty "disagreement" with Sun over pricing.

    "Be ready to move everything to HPUX!" they said. Well, everything we used from Weblogic to log4j was all ready to rock.

    Java also removed some items in C++ that just made it difficult. Pointers gave people shakes and Java didn't have them. Anyone remember things like double and triple dereferenced pointers? Bad times.

    Java came with a boatload of standardized libraries.

    Compiling was better. Remember header files and what happened if they weren't declared in just the right order?

    It was easy to do what probably most of us do which is developer on Windows and deploy on Unix.

    Java did get lucky. It had top notch people designing the thing which attracted great vendor and user support.

    As for the next generation....well, promising to fix in the next version what was supposedly wrong in whatever is out today is an old Microsoft trick.

    We see when it happens.
  107. Show me a system where Ruby can stand alone, and does not hang off of Apache, and uses a high-performance database written in Ruby, then I will call it scalable!
    By that definition, C/C++ is way too scalable than Java.
    No. This was true a few years ago, but not these days. Now Java can reach C/C++ speeds, which is why you can write high-performance applications (such as databases) in it.I think you may need to do a bit more research into the current state of Java if you are going to make statements like this.

    What high-performance databases are written in Java? Not saying Java is not capable of high-performance applications but what is written in Java that has high-performance? AFAIK eBay, Amazon, Google, etc all use their own custom C/C++ applications.
  108. What high-performance databases are written in Java? Not saying Java is not capable of high-performance applications but what is written in Java that has high-performance?

    Take a look at the recent thread showing the performance of embedded databases.
    AFAIK eBay, Amazon, Google, etc all use their own custom C/C++ applications.

    How is this relevant? These companies have been around for a years, and started when Java was relatively new. Do you expect them all to dump legacy C/C++ code?
  109. What high-performance databases are written in Java? Not saying Java is not capable of high-performance applications but what is written in Java that has high-performance?
    Take a look at the recent thread showing the performance of embedded databases.

    Could you provide a URL?
    AFAIK eBay, Amazon, Google, etc all use their own custom C/C++ applications.
    How is this relevant? These companies have been around for a years, and started when Java was relatively new. Do you expect them all to dump legacy C/C++ code?

    No, but could you provide a URL to information about where Java is being used in high-performance environment on the scale of such sites as Amazon? I'm sure their are same examples, just be nice to provide examples when you are talking about scalability.

    Could you provide example of where you have had to port an application written with a scripting language to Java due to performance? What was the difference in benchmarking the application after porting?

    What are examples of business logic you have worked with that required Java?
  110. What high-performance databases are written in Java? Not saying Java is not capable of high-performance applications but what is written in Java that has high-performance?
    Take a look at the recent thread showing the performance of embedded databases.
    Could you provide a URL?

    http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=32338

    Could you give a URL showing the performance of a relational database coded in pure Ruby?
    AFAIK eBay, Amazon, Google, etc all use their own custom C/C++ applications.
    How is this relevant? These companies have been around for a years, and started when Java was relatively new. Do you expect them all to dump legacy C/C++ code?
    No, but could you provide a URL to information about where Java is being used in high-performance environment on the scale of such sites as Amazon? I'm sure their are same examples, just be nice to provide examples when you are talking about scalability.
    I know of no definitive or even partial list, however I can give you examples of high-volume sites that use J2EE: The UK Cooperative bank (www.cooperativebank.co.uk): one of the best on-line banking sites. The UK Daily Telegraph (www.telegraph.co.uk) was one of the first newspapers on-line - uses Java (and even provides an Applet for crosswords!)

    The subject of a TSS story last year:
    http://www.c24.biz/download/Options-Exchange-on-JavaSpaces.pdf

    And, of course, EBay!
    Could you provide example of where you have had to port an application written with a scripting language to Java due to performance? What was the difference in benchmarking the application after porting? What are examples of business logic you have worked with that required Java?

    Yes.

    I can't give the exact details because it was a commercial project. However, it involved some mathematical operations and object comparisons based on dates to provide lists of products that match a customer's selection. A scripting language (cold fusion) could not cope with the demand. A port to JSP + struts + Java could. I can't give benchmarks (this was a rescue-the-site operation, not merely a speed improvement exercise), other than the fact that the Java site could cope, and has coped with increasing load from then on.

    You might also want to look at JBoss's Nukes:
    http://www.jboss.org/developers/projects/nukes/index
    Ported partly, I believe, because PHP could handle the load.
  111. Could you give a URL showing the performance of a relational database coded in pure Ruby?

    No, I don't use Ruby. I was just asking you for backup to your claims. And that benchmark you provided favours embedded databases since you don't have to go out of process and have marshalling/unmarshalling of data. Futhermore, HSQLDB is single threaded and therefore does not scale. Yet in the URL you provided it is rated the highest performing database.

    The question with Rails is, is it performant enough? Well I don't know the answer to that. But I do know a lot of sites are using Perl, PHP and Python (with Plone and Zope). And so I would not be surprised if Rails could be used for lots of sites.
    I can't give the exact details because it was a commercial project. However, it involved some mathematical operations and object comparisons based on dates to provide lists of products that match a customer's selection. A scripting language (cold fusion) could not cope with the demand. A port to JSP + struts + Java could. I can't give benchmarks (this was a rescue-the-site operation, not merely a speed improvement exercise), other than the fact that the Java site could cope, and has coped with increasing load from then on.

    Without benchmarking or profiling, how can you know the problem was the use of scripting langauge?
  112. The question with Rails is, is it performant enough? Well I don't know the answer to that. But I do know a lot of sites are using Perl, PHP and Python (with Plone and Zope). And so I would not be surprised if Rails could be used for lots of sites.

    Neither would I. I'm just after the avoidance of hype (e.g. 'Ruby on Rails can do everything that J2EE can').
    I can't give the exact details because it was a commercial project. However, it involved some mathematical operations and object comparisons based on dates to provide lists of products that match a customer's selection. A scripting language (cold fusion) could not cope with the demand. A port to JSP + struts + Java could. I can't give benchmarks (this was a rescue-the-site operation, not merely a speed improvement exercise), other than the fact that the Java site could cope, and has coped with increasing load from then on.
    Without benchmarking or profiling, how can you know the problem was the use of scripting langauge?

    Easy. The scripting site was fine before this particular logic was added. When the logic was added, it brought down the site. The change to the website that caused the problem was clear. When functionally equivalent Java was used instead (at first, virtually a line-by-line translation of the script to Java), the problem was solved. In fact, it was not only solved, but far more logic could be added without causing problems.
  113. Neither would I. I'm just after the avoidance of hype (e.g. 'Ruby on Rails can do everything that J2EE can').

    Ok, I exaggerated. You know, I wonder how much work it would take to reimplement some J2EE specifications in Ruby. It would be a good academic project. Ruby has Distributed Objects (DRb), which together with other mentioned features, might be enough to get such a project going. Maybe EJB 3.0 could be prototyped in Ruby.
  114. Neither would I. I'm just after the avoidance of hype (e.g. 'Ruby on Rails can do everything that J2EE can').

    Ok, I exaggerated. You know, I wonder how much work it would take to reimplement some J2EE specifications in Ruby. It would be a good academic project. Ruby has Distributed Objects (DRb), which together with other mentioned features, might be enough to get such a project going. Maybe EJB 3.0 could be prototyped in Ruby.

    Give us a call when you're done.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  115. Neither would I. I'm just after the avoidance of hype (e.g. 'Ruby on Rails can do everything that J2EE can').
    Ok, I exaggerated. You know, I wonder how much work it would take to reimplement some J2EE specifications in Ruby. It would be a good academic project. Ruby has Distributed Objects (DRb), which together with other mentioned features, might be enough to get such a project going. Maybe EJB 3.0 could be prototyped in Ruby.
    Give us a call when you're done.Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol, Inc.Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
    Must have eaten your Wheaties this weekend. You are in excellent form this week!
  116. Neither would I. I'm just after the avoidance of hype (e.g. 'Ruby on Rails can do everything that J2EE can').
    Ok, I exaggerated. You know, I wonder how much work it would take to reimplement some J2EE specifications in Ruby. It would be a good academic project. Ruby has Distributed Objects (DRb), which together with other mentioned features, might be enough to get such a project going. Maybe EJB 3.0 could be prototyped in Ruby.
    Give us a call when you're done.Peace,Cameron PurdyTangosol, Inc.Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
    Must have eaten your Wheaties this weekend. You are in excellent form this week!

    Indeed. Thanks Cameron......

    As we say around here: +1
  117. Easy. The scripting site was fine before this particular logic was added. When the logic was added, it brought down the site. The change to the website that caused the problem was clear. When functionally equivalent Java was used instead (at first, virtually a line-by-line translation of the script to Java), the problem was solved. In fact, it was not only solved, but far more logic could be added without causing problems.

    Okay, I know nothing of Cold Fusion. But different scripting lanaguages perform differently. So the question still remains how performant is Rails?
  118. Easy. The scripting site was fine before this particular logic was added. When the logic was added, it brought down the site. The change to the website that caused the problem was clear. When functionally equivalent Java was used instead (at first, virtually a line-by-line translation of the script to Java), the problem was solved. In fact, it was not only solved, but far more logic could be added without causing problems.
    Okay, I know nothing of Cold Fusion. But different scripting lanaguages perform differently. So the question still remains how performant is Rails?

    I have no idea. Which is why I am staying away from it until I have had time to evaluate it, and until I have seen widespread and long-term use. When a customer wants a large, robust, high-volume commercial website, and I have a choice of J2EE or a new fashionable script-driven system not yet in wide use, the choice is obvious, isn't it?
  119. Would Orbitz do?

    Here is the first one I came to. Google for more.
    http://sys-con.com/story/?storyid=43774&DE=1
  120. Wow, nearly 100 comments ...[ Go to top ]

    Is it me or is there some nervousness in the air ?
  121. Wow, nearly 100 comments ...[ Go to top ]

    Is it me or is there some nervousness in the air ?

    If there was a radar to detect change of thinking, it would be going crazy right now. :-) I mean, people don't share their more controversial opinions and they don't like to provide ammunition to their enemies neither to their competitors. This pretty much seals trusty opinions from coming up more openly. But they are out there, though to capture all of them you need to be at the right time at the right place.

    To clear it up: I think there is lots of excitement about Rails, but people won't gain much from sharing it with us.

    Is this hype? I don't think so.

    For example, the comment of "arrow in the quiver" is pretty much how everyone should consider RIFE and Rails.
  122. Wow, nearly 100 comments ...[ Go to top ]

    If there was a radar to detect change of thinking, it would be going crazy right now. :-)

    I think you are trying to talk yourself into believing you have the 'next big thing', rather than answer solid criticisms of your favourite technology. I see a lot of noise and comment about RoR, but, as yet, I have seen no solid evidence that it will deliver a full or even partial replacement for J2EE. I'm afraid that commments on this thread have somewhat put me off RoR - it seems to be clever system, but more suited to quick scripting by hackers.

    There are far more powerful web development tools, and far faster ways to put together a quick website if that is what you are after. I'm left wondering if it has any advantage at all over alternatives. RoR probably occupies a small niche:

    For quick scripting there are other popular and established open-source alternatives like PHP which has a large user base and huge resources behind it. The problem is that most quick-scripters aren't usually interested in object-oriented features or database independence, or views or controllers (Just look at Slashdot comments to see how unpopular OOP is with this type of developer!)

    Another type of web developer want things like Visual Basic - minimal coding, drag-and-drop design. JavaServer Faces is one system that gives them this, and RoR doesn't. (Oh, and JSF also allows for independence of rendering technology)

    Finally, there are the serious large-scale application designers, who need high performance and guaranteed reliablity and security. This is where the power Java and J2EE (and, occasionally, .NET) really delivers.

    It is hard to see where the gap is in web development that RoR can occupy.
    Is this hype? I don't think so.

    Look, I am persisting in trying to talk down the hype here because I have long experience of having to salvage failed projects where enthusiastic developers started playing with some cool new scripting language or tool and then assumed that it was the 'next big thing', and then they found that their quick-and-dirty application had grown into an unsupportable monster, requiring porting to more stable technologies.

    Have fun with your Ruby applications. Enjoy creating small websites with your open-source tools. Play about with source code. I intend to play with RoR, as it looks fun! But, if someone asks you to develop a major project, consider using something with a proven history of delivering the goods. There may be specialised occasions where scripting language can do big things, but unless you have the resources of Google, it may prove very hard to get this working.

    Of course, in a few years, I may be proven wrong, but I don't mind - any new technology should be given time to prove itself.
  123. Wow, nearly 100 comments ...[ Go to top ]

    It's like Reality TV, only with coders. Fascinating.
  124. Before it was PHP vs. Java, now Ruby (ROR) vs. Java. A lot of contenders like to chip away at least a little bit of power from the emperor. Seems like when ever some niche solution can do things better than Java IN THAT PARTICULAR NICHE, it is seen as evidence of clear and decisive victory over the throne. - illusions of grandieur.

    What people seem to forget is that Java is not comparable to a niche solution. It is a programming language that has to deal with all kinds of problems, not just little web apps. Ruby/ROR can not be compared to Java, period. Maybe many many years from now, Ruby can have the same status as Java has NOW. Right now, Ruby/RoR can't compete with PHP, let alone Java.

    Even when you look at .NET, it does only some things better than Java. That list is limited...decisively. The fact is that nothing can overtake years of experience in the field, not even billions of marketing money.
  125. Only time will tell[ Go to top ]

    I love Ruby and RoR looks and feels great. But should we really bother about Java vs. Ruby ? I think it's more important that Ruby gets into mainstream of the scripting languages.

    I work in a company that uses Perl everywhere, some use Python. I can't count the statements of my co-workers when they mourned about unmaintainable Perl-Scripts and that they needed to start from scratch.

    I really hope that RoR is the killer framework that pushes Ruby into mainstream. But let's stay humble :-)
  126. I believe the problem in this thread started with the "vs" statements.

    Claiming that Ruby == Java is ridiculous.
    Ruby is a scripting language. No matter how OOP it is, it was intended for small tasks.

    Wrong. Debasing a language via "it's only a scripting language", is also ridiculous, and ignorant toward real-life solutions. You've been in a cubicle too long if you really believe those statements.
    When developing a large commercial website, the conciseness of the language is irrelevant. What matters is performance, and the tools to debug, test and maintain the application.

    Conciseness of the language has nothing to do with maintainability? Have you ever built anything with Perl? On that note (Perl), have you used a framework like Mason?


    To Ruby: You do some things very well, but you are not Java. You are still not much more than cute and interesting. I think we are all hoping you amount to something.

    To Java: The web-world is not actually driven on marketing phrasing like "enterprise-level". Often times the speed differences between massive (but runtime efficient!) systems and "small scripting language" solutions are negligable, even within very high traffic. It depends very much on the specific operations. Moore's law also sides with the smaller guys. Webbish Java is certainly suited for specific applications (business logic was a good general example), but carrying that over to "high traffic == server crash!" is nonsense.

    Java is a heavy cross to bear sometimes and can be a deterrent to many people who want to get an idea off the ground without a corporate team of college graduates, dedicated servers, and H1 workers from India. There are "drop-in" solutions, this is true, but the community as a whole cannot by design be as cohesive as the smaller guys. Java tries to be everything to everyone, and this is part of the reason it fails. Sprawl.

    Strictly speaking from a code and deployment perspective, Rails destroys Java. It does so without the illegibility and spaghetti festival design you find inside something like PHP. It seems to be a very beautiful bridge between two worlds.

    If you'd like to compare job saturation with your own logic, try searching for PHP and see what comes up. PHP is bottom of the barrel in several ways (sorry), and represents most of the worst sides of "scripting languages". It owes an extremely high adoption rate to very meager, hackish beginnings.

    Java has been my bread and butter, my mainstay. And it isn't going anywhere for a long time. I wouldn't use anything else in many situations.

    And of course: adoption is a very big deal, making many holy wars irrelevant. Just ask Microsoft.
  127. Ruby is a scripting language. No matter how OOP it is, it was intended for small tasks.
    Wrong. Debasing a language via "it's only a scripting language", is also ridiculous, and ignorant

    Well, you had better tell this to the Ruby website authors:

    "Ruby is the interpreted scripting language for quick and easy object-oriented programming. It has many features to process text files and to do system management tasks (as in Perl)"

    [It is for quick and easy programming, and for tasks such as processing text files and system management.]

    I'm not debasing it. Ruby is a great language. But - use it for what it was designed for!

    I find it amazing how many developers are subject to wishful thinking. They wish that Ruby was not a scripting language, so they declare it isn't, even though what Ruby is, and what it can be used for, is clearly stated on the Ruby website.
     toward real-life solutions. You've been in a cubicle too long if you really believe those statements.

    It is the exact opposite. It is real-life experience over many, many years of how scripting languages have been over-used, leading to an unmaintainable mess.
    When developing a large commercial website, the conciseness of the language is irrelevant. What matters is performance, and the tools to debug, test and maintain the application.
    Conciseness of the language has nothing to do with maintainability? Have you ever built anything with Perl?

    You are confusing the matter of conciseness with readability. Java is more verbose (less concise) than Ruby, but is readable.
    To Java: The web-world is not actually driven on marketing phrasing like "enterprise-level".

    "Enterprise level" is not marketing. It is a set of serious requirements.
    Often times the speed differences between massive (but runtime efficient!) systems and "small scripting language" solutions are negligable, even within very high traffic. It depends very much on the specific operations.

    Yes, but often the speed differences are not negligible. If you use Java your website is ready to cope with such speed differences. It is very unwise to develop in something that could not cope with the speed.
    but carrying that over to "high traffic == server crash!" is nonsense.

    This happens all the time in IT.
    Java tries to be everything to everyone, and this is part of the reason it fails. Sprawl.

    It is news to me that Java has failed. I use it to rapidly produce websites.
    Strictly speaking from a code and deployment perspective, Rails destroys Java.

    Nonsense. To deploy my Java web application I need only one single file - the WAR, that is automatically produced by my IDE. Things could not be simpler.
    It does so without the illegibility and spaghetti festival design you find inside something like PHP.

    Ruby on Rails still has code embedded in web pages, which is old-fashioned and messy.