![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Developers researching new web application development frameworks need to judge the maturity and stability of the platform. In order to better facilitate this judgement I am adding a rails in production section to the rails wiki page. This page will list extremely popular websites that use the ruby on rails development framework in production environments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.161.85 ( talk) 05:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Significance - Almost all of the assertions in the signficance section are simpy untrue. For example, RoR isnt even close to being an early adopter of ORM. Lets keep it deleted until someone can cite some sources and make non partisan points
RoR goes by the motto "convention over configuration" and many things that are supposed to work, just work for you and you can alter it based on your needs.-- Duncan21fan ( talk) 09:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
(comment moved from top of discussion into regular discussion zone - I apologize if this was intentionally left at the top, but I saw no reason for it to be there).
Hey, I'm pulling out the Needle part. Believe me, as a good friend of the Needle creator (Jamis Buck), I know about the unsuccessful effort that was made to integrate Needle into Rails (see http://ruby.jamisbuck.org/rails-injected.html for details). Essentially, David decided on his own solution for the DI functionality rather than creating a dependency on Needle. So, long story short: Needle is not a part of Rails -- Dan 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am probably being rude - I don't know wiki etiquette and i haven't read *any* of the comments below. ignore as you like: I am trying to decide which language I will learn next and this article makes it sound like something that I could connect with easily. However, it makes me nervous that there is no criticism section. was this written by partial parties? will i have to find the criticisms on my own when a project blows up? excluding the unattractive stuff seems counter to the [unrealistic?] goal here.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.193.173 ( talk) 08:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Note -- "RDBMS", like several other acronyms, is not well-defined...
Most everyone seems to think that rails is the best thing ever.
I hadn't really read any criticism until this slashdot post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158096&cid=13286688
What are the real shortcomings of rails?
I'll say a criticism: there's so much hype surrounding RoR it makes me want to puke. Silver bullet...furthermore there's all this hype for Ruby. Smalltalk syntax. Forget it. I'll go with PHP and Cake.
There is also the fact that rails overwrites certain core functions of ruby. Not exactly the best idea for compatibility and integration. ~capiCrimm
Overwrites? Or overrides? Or extends? Most of the changes I've seen involve adding useful methods to core classes, and rarely does it break their existing methods. The glory of Ruby is that you can reopen classes and reimplement methods. Yes, it must be done carefully, but Rails does so very well.
I'm not convinced by the assertion that "Rails is also fairly neutral when it comes to the database schema - a Rails application can be developed atop an already existing database".
ActiveRecord has a number of significant restrictions including: no support for compound keys; no support for default values based on functions; and no ordering of sql based on referential constraints. I don't see that as a major criticism of Rails, but as an acknowledged limitation to it's current applicable domain.
I suggest changing the assertion to "some already existing databases", or possibly just deleting it altogether. I have no idea how to quantify "fairly neutral", or to meaningfully estimate the proportion of existing databases that ActiveRecord might cope with. But I believe that ActiveRecord is less "neutral" than (Java) mapping frameworks such as TOPLink and Hibernate.
I last looked into this in June 2005, which is why I have not changed the article.
213.249.134.66 17:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Graham Jenkins
If by "no default values based on functions," you mean there's no way to say "if this value is this when the record is retrieved, it should be this instead," you can absolutely do this with an after_find callback. Because of performance issues related to the callback, however, it remains mostly undocumented for the time being. Misogynist 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know exactly what issues Rails has with Apache mod_ruby? A lot of folks seem to recommend NOT to use mod_ruby with Rails, or any other thing at all. I have never used it - just a bunch of gut-feeling hearsay, or are the gotchas documented somewhere? -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 14:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It isn't clear what full stack means at all from the article, nor is it particularly easy to find out what it means using google. In fact, using google it almost appears that "full stack" is more of a marketing term than anything else. I'd be inclined to remove "full stack" from the article until either a full stack article is written or, at the least, the Ruby on Rails article explains what full stack means.
Any relations between the two? Any other words/phrases like "XXX on XXXs"? Yao Ziyuan 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I just have to ask: how many people thought this was a Willy on Wheels creation? I did...:-)-- AK7 13:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You guys are like Cramer on Crack! 124.171.159.105 ( talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No where, that I can find, on the RoR homepage or readme's does "DRY-COC" appear. While DRY and COC are part of RoR's philosophy, there is no reason to combine them other than to make a joke...so my question is, is this vandalism/joke or did I miss this "DRY-COC" thing somewhere?
DRY-COC? WTF?
CoC => Convention over Configuration. It is a well-used acronym in the rails community, but obviously not in the DRY-COC context!
The examples section has become a list of adds (inbound links) for the sites in question.
I agree.
How about some info on how it got to be called Ruby on Rails? -- 24.249.108.133 23:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
RoR was released as an open source project 9 months ago, and now is packaged with OSX and is a preference if not requirement for every job listing I see. Will someone discuss, in the history section, where the unparalleled frenzy came from and why? - Mrcolj 14:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In the article on Django I've been in the habit of removing "see also" links to other frameworks, on the grounds that they're redundant with the much more complete link to the frameworks category which appears there, here, on the TurboGears article, etc., etc. I've argued for the same in the talk page for the article on TG, though I don't feel as comfortable removing them there. And now I'll argue for it here, though I won't remove them unless there's a consensus to do so.
So... given that all these articles already have a link to the full frameworks category list, is there a reason to pull out specific frameworks for special attention (and, over time, such lists tend to grow to resemble the category list) when that information's already available through the category link? Ubernostrum 04:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree -Roger Pack
The title says it all.
This article suffers from the experts-only perspective. It refers to too many highly specialized concepts that are unexplained or poorly connected to the other parts of the article, or to the article's referents.
Too many gratuitous assumptions are made about what the reader already knows or is expected to know. This is more in tune with a breakout session discussion at a computing conference vs. an explanatory article for an encyclopedia that is supposed to make topics accessible to the wider audience. While this kind of problem is sometimes unavoidable when discussing computing topics, and pervades computing-related texts, a more explanatory and descriptive approach is called for in this article.
Disagree. A separate part of the article near the top should give a more user friendly overview, but keep the detail below it - it is a good collection of information that would allow someone to decide whether to use RoR and compare to other languages (and this is probably this article's main use, so without the detail much of its usefulness would be gone). Wikipedia is altering what an encyclopaedia is thought of as being anyway.
Ideally an encyclopaedia would cater for a number of audiences with differing levels of background knowledge. Often it helps to have a relatively undemanding summary followed by detailed elaboration (and when I say 'summary' I don't have in mind the same kind of concise abstract as used in e.g. mathematical articles). That detailed elaboration may get necessarily technical but in this case, Wikipedia can help with its Wiki links. If all articles were written this way, readability would benefit significantly. Meeprophone ( talk) 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with this argument. I am not technically incompetent, programatically impaired, or an "Average Joe". After reading the opening paragraphs of this article, I have no clue what Ruby on Rails is, or what it does. I came here because I assumed that there would be a good, clear, general description of what it does, what it is for, and how it does what it does. S Schaffter ( talk) 05:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the reason behind Action Pack being redirected here? There is a TV programming block called Action Pack which is now under Universal TV's Action Pack. Should Action Pack be an disabig. page or the programming block be there with an disablink. Spshu 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. However, it is certainly a feather in the cap of Rails, and certainly an indicator of its viability, to highlight the projects, commercial projects and university endeavors undertaken in rails. That's how the entry was initially and why it expanded. It is unfair to Rails to only list a handful. We (FiveRuns) were put on the list by someone other than ourselves due to our support of RoR. BTW, are you involved in the project (RoR) in some capacity)? Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks, Steven Smith, CEO, FiveRuns
I have no interest in Ruby on Rails at all - I have an interesting in building an General readers Encylopedia. Why does a general readers encylopedia require more than 2 or 3 examples of it's use ? Indeed a case can be made that it requires no examples of it's use - most of the other software articles we have don't have them. --
Charlesknight
18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine that sentence-by-sentence edits are going to help this article very much. A full rewrite is in order. I've read quite a lot of tutorials on RoR, and many of them are really very good. So is the "Agile" book, which is the bible for RoR. Given the availability of such resources, it could be argued that this RoR page could be shortened to a paragraph with a few links to the outside web. (Certainly, the page should not be extended into a tutorial or a users manual ... these exist already, and RoR is complicated enough that a mini-tutorial or mini-manual is probably not realizable.)
The reasonable thing to do may be to delete almost all of the content and to write or encourage a very short, largely untechnical, replacement. This is a dramatic step, and it has the feel of aggression, so I guess nobody wants to do it. But, for those who would argue against it, I encourage asking the question: who is served by the present content?
The warning flag regarding the obscurity of this page is accurate. -- Dankelley 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* Okay, I suck at writing, and whoever deleted my crap is probably a hero. However, I'd like to ask one thing: Who is the current truncated version serving? Here's some of my suggestions:
In the present state, this article tells neither your boss or the corporate coder who ultimately picks the framework why Rails is any good or what makes it remarkable. Some of the technical details and examples are needed, like it or not. Just my opinion, of course... -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 20:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''William Shakespeare''' was a [[person]]. {{stub}}
(This article is a stub. You can help not upset the delicate balance between fact and controversy by not expanding it.)) I'm not saying we're a full-on web framework shopping site; I'm just saying that just reciting random, generic details doesn't make a good article, and people who are foolish enough to trust Wikipedia as a guide to frameworks that people have actually used for some things are going to be disappointed with this article. ('''William Shakespeare''' was a [[person]]. Like most enterprising people, he was equipped with two [[nostril]]s. He was highly [[literacy|literate]]. {{stub}}
) In its current state this article suffers from the software equivalent of
WP:HOLE. Would you prefer
Tetris article to boil down to "It's a puzzle game where you move blocks around and they vanish too"? Is the current explanation of the game's utterly contrived history confusing or excessive?Surely, it's worth mentioning the surge in RoR's popularity (it seems to be the "it" framework these days). How do we document/quantify this? More importantly, how do we objectively state why it is a big deal without violating NPOV or using "weasel words"? Josephgrossberg 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't wikipedia lost places to host your rails-site? (From Spiken)
I'm not an expert in this subject, but may I suggest the inclusion of Catalyst (software) to the see also section? Perl is still an important language to consider for web applications and deserves a representative there, and I would further submit that Catalyst is the most important Perl framwork to date. -- Pkchan 09:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Forget it; I just added a link to the list of frameworks; that seems like the most neutral compromise. Josephgrossberg 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is really underdeveloped and needs a lot of work. The lead section is not long enough. Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LEAD for more info on this. There are other problems with the article but lets get the lead fixed up first. I have tagged this article.-- 220.237.166.156 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The lead section also fails to mention how the "Rails" part of the name originated. It only explains the origin of "Ruby" indirectly, by following the link to Ruby (programming language). — Quicksilver T @ 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a bit more, what I would consider important, information to the introductory paragraph. I don't think it reads as well as it could do though. I imagine the article will grow in future to give more information in the body of the article (there is very little right now) on the extra topics I've included in the intro. Johnnykimble 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I added the Elastic Server On-Demand site and was trying to be informative. I am biased, I just thought that the fact that it is a pretty nice Rails-based system AND it lets you do something interesting with Rails was fun. I would still say editorial comment aside that if the goal is to show reasonably large scale real world projects then Elastic Server On-Demand is a valid reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.168.244 ( talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
How about the NASCAR website, it built in rails. Uaflyer ( talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should definitely add Twitter, which just hit Alexa #232 in the US and is now the highest-traffic Rails site out there. (The list of projects says not to add anything without talking here.) DumpButter 19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Matchbin.com is a worthy addition (I am a contractor for Matchbin). Matchbin has been on rails for a year now and is a very high traffic site. there are now hundreds of partner sites running on matchbin's technology ( which is built on rails). User:timcharper 15:32, 16 April 2007 (Mountain Standard Time)
good plan - User:timcharper 18 May 2007
Dailykos version 4, which should roll out sometime during the fall of 2007. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/14/184757/416 dKos has about 600 000 hits per day.
An IP address just added justin.tv without discussing it here, but it appears to me that it's a notable enough project to include based on the media coverage referenced there. IMO, it's probably fine to include any project notable enough for its own Wikipedia page, and if the list gets too long we can split it out into its own article. JavaTenor 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added mojohelpdesk.com to the list. It's a pretty good example of a useful app that serves small business and compete against the bigger guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.126.158 ( talk) 14:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What about a section for Ruby on Rails job sites? Like http://www.rorjobs.com
What this article is missing is a section on the significance or impact of Ruby on Rails. Why does Ruby on Rails matter? What is its sphere influence? These kinds of questions. Right now, the article has nothing about why Ruby on Rails is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article or why anyone should even care about Ruby on Rails. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about the subject, so if someone could step up to the plate, it would be much appreciated. -- The Wild Falcon 12:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
myself omkar sonawane from India.I want to ask u that how to write programs in this ROR?is ther any spaecial compiler for ROR? Thank U............... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.92.72 ( talk) 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've compiled a list of Rails links that I enjoy referencing and thought I would add them to this page. However, it seems that more and more people use wikipedia to SEO their site and I don't want to start a snow ball effect.
The current links are solid. For example, Railcast is one of my favorite podcasts and probably the best Rails podcast available. I for one feel that links to such great RAILS sources should be on the site. Adding my list of links seems like a double edged sword though. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeNaqvi ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? RoR's 2 principals are DRYCoc?! no thanks, I'll stick to my php libraries thank you very much.
It could not fail: someone had to insert the obnoxious tag
"This article or section is written like an advertisement." "Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view."
After thoroughly reading the article a third time, I honestly cannot find any infringement of the NPOV policy. I also cannot find any statement that deviates from objetivity, truth, or the basic facts. I wonder, How to write statements describing a subject matter in order to suit the tastes of several self-appointed 'critics' who have embarked on the noble mission of tagging, tagging, and tagging everything they come across, without ever stopping to add any valuable materials of amendments/corrections to existing texts? Tall order, no doubt. I'm removing the tag, and I'm inviting its 'author' to prove what the tag accuses the article of. Regards, -- AVM ( talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added a criticism section:
Hervegirod ( talk) 11:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that while typing "Ruby on" into WP search engine, one of the keywords I got was "Ruby_on_Iaails" which actually does forward to this article! so quick question..what's that about? Is that a common slang for RoR used anywhere, or just some funny move... -- K.G. ( talk)
The sentence "It is intended to be used with an Agile development methodology. . ." seems out of place, and a little bit OR. . . is there a source for this, or is it mere buzzword-associated between a popular framework and a trendy "development methodology"? Does something really, really bad happen if one tries to use RoR with a "non-agile" methodology? evildeathmath 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This article contracts itself in that it initially claims that Mongrel is the preferred web server and later claims that Thin is preferred. Probably conflicting editors at work. Anyone know which is right? Perhaps there shouldn't even be a claim on which is preferred. Tweisbach ( talk) 05:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed all but the official website link per WP:EL. All but one of the additional links can be found on the official homepage. There is no need to link to theother sites. Stop reverting. 16x9 ( talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the fact tags on most of the listed sites because they are already referenced by the citation at the beginning of the section (perhaps the cite should be repeated over the applicable items, as it does not apply to all of the sites). A later edit has tagged them all as "original research?" with an edit summary of "{{or}}". I'm wondering what is meant by this? The sites are referenced to rubyonrails.org, not the opinion of one or more editors here. -- skew-t ( talk) 02:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
ASP.NET differs from ASP.NET MVC and I think that section have to be there. As well as I know some frameworks like Django and Groovy are inspired by ruby on rails and I'm not sure about ASP.NET MVC. ICEAGE ( talk) 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping to find some mention in the article about the origin of the "on Rails" portion of the name. Was there any significance to it when RoR was named, or was it just "it sounds cool"? -- 140.142.20.229 ( talk) 22:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Ha, the answer is actually on this discussion page. Search for "struts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.184.234 ( talk) 04:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Ruby on Rails. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I've read quite a few blogs, articles, and comments about Ruby on Rails, and I still don't understand where it fits in the ecosystem. (I've done a good amount of programming, but not for webpages.)
1. could I just, if I wanted, use Ruby to do everything instead of using Rails?
2. if I use Rails, would I still use Ruby at all?
I'm starting to get the picture that I would still use Ruby for data manipulation and any non-trivial logic, and Rails would be in charge of putting it all on the screen. It seems that Rails just has a nice structured way to present everything, and eliminated a ton of manual or pre-packaged code to create the HTML and CSS.
Again, this is how it appears to me, and this was the section I was hoping to find in Wikipedia to clarify all this. Wikipequi ( talk) 03:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Ruby on Rails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is a cut and paste of the second reference in this article (in the infobox) that is not formatted properly, I couldn't locate it in the article to correct it:
{{cite web| https://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2018/12/4/Rails-5-2-2-has-been-released/%7Cwebsite=Ruby on Rails|author=rafaelfranca|accessdate=2018-12-4|title=Rails 5.2.2 has been released!}
If anyone can help, please correct this, thanks. Neptune's Trident ( talk) 00:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The redirect
Ruby on Яails has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6 § Ruby on Яails until a consensus is reached.
Duckmather (
talk)
04:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Ruby on Iaails has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6 § Ruby on Iaails until a consensus is reached.
Duckmather (
talk)
04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Developers researching new web application development frameworks need to judge the maturity and stability of the platform. In order to better facilitate this judgement I am adding a rails in production section to the rails wiki page. This page will list extremely popular websites that use the ruby on rails development framework in production environments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.161.85 ( talk) 05:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Significance - Almost all of the assertions in the signficance section are simpy untrue. For example, RoR isnt even close to being an early adopter of ORM. Lets keep it deleted until someone can cite some sources and make non partisan points
RoR goes by the motto "convention over configuration" and many things that are supposed to work, just work for you and you can alter it based on your needs.-- Duncan21fan ( talk) 09:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
(comment moved from top of discussion into regular discussion zone - I apologize if this was intentionally left at the top, but I saw no reason for it to be there).
Hey, I'm pulling out the Needle part. Believe me, as a good friend of the Needle creator (Jamis Buck), I know about the unsuccessful effort that was made to integrate Needle into Rails (see http://ruby.jamisbuck.org/rails-injected.html for details). Essentially, David decided on his own solution for the DI functionality rather than creating a dependency on Needle. So, long story short: Needle is not a part of Rails -- Dan 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am probably being rude - I don't know wiki etiquette and i haven't read *any* of the comments below. ignore as you like: I am trying to decide which language I will learn next and this article makes it sound like something that I could connect with easily. However, it makes me nervous that there is no criticism section. was this written by partial parties? will i have to find the criticisms on my own when a project blows up? excluding the unattractive stuff seems counter to the [unrealistic?] goal here.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.193.173 ( talk) 08:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Note -- "RDBMS", like several other acronyms, is not well-defined...
Most everyone seems to think that rails is the best thing ever.
I hadn't really read any criticism until this slashdot post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158096&cid=13286688
What are the real shortcomings of rails?
I'll say a criticism: there's so much hype surrounding RoR it makes me want to puke. Silver bullet...furthermore there's all this hype for Ruby. Smalltalk syntax. Forget it. I'll go with PHP and Cake.
There is also the fact that rails overwrites certain core functions of ruby. Not exactly the best idea for compatibility and integration. ~capiCrimm
Overwrites? Or overrides? Or extends? Most of the changes I've seen involve adding useful methods to core classes, and rarely does it break their existing methods. The glory of Ruby is that you can reopen classes and reimplement methods. Yes, it must be done carefully, but Rails does so very well.
I'm not convinced by the assertion that "Rails is also fairly neutral when it comes to the database schema - a Rails application can be developed atop an already existing database".
ActiveRecord has a number of significant restrictions including: no support for compound keys; no support for default values based on functions; and no ordering of sql based on referential constraints. I don't see that as a major criticism of Rails, but as an acknowledged limitation to it's current applicable domain.
I suggest changing the assertion to "some already existing databases", or possibly just deleting it altogether. I have no idea how to quantify "fairly neutral", or to meaningfully estimate the proportion of existing databases that ActiveRecord might cope with. But I believe that ActiveRecord is less "neutral" than (Java) mapping frameworks such as TOPLink and Hibernate.
I last looked into this in June 2005, which is why I have not changed the article.
213.249.134.66 17:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Graham Jenkins
If by "no default values based on functions," you mean there's no way to say "if this value is this when the record is retrieved, it should be this instead," you can absolutely do this with an after_find callback. Because of performance issues related to the callback, however, it remains mostly undocumented for the time being. Misogynist 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know exactly what issues Rails has with Apache mod_ruby? A lot of folks seem to recommend NOT to use mod_ruby with Rails, or any other thing at all. I have never used it - just a bunch of gut-feeling hearsay, or are the gotchas documented somewhere? -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 14:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It isn't clear what full stack means at all from the article, nor is it particularly easy to find out what it means using google. In fact, using google it almost appears that "full stack" is more of a marketing term than anything else. I'd be inclined to remove "full stack" from the article until either a full stack article is written or, at the least, the Ruby on Rails article explains what full stack means.
Any relations between the two? Any other words/phrases like "XXX on XXXs"? Yao Ziyuan 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I just have to ask: how many people thought this was a Willy on Wheels creation? I did...:-)-- AK7 13:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You guys are like Cramer on Crack! 124.171.159.105 ( talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No where, that I can find, on the RoR homepage or readme's does "DRY-COC" appear. While DRY and COC are part of RoR's philosophy, there is no reason to combine them other than to make a joke...so my question is, is this vandalism/joke or did I miss this "DRY-COC" thing somewhere?
DRY-COC? WTF?
CoC => Convention over Configuration. It is a well-used acronym in the rails community, but obviously not in the DRY-COC context!
The examples section has become a list of adds (inbound links) for the sites in question.
I agree.
How about some info on how it got to be called Ruby on Rails? -- 24.249.108.133 23:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
RoR was released as an open source project 9 months ago, and now is packaged with OSX and is a preference if not requirement for every job listing I see. Will someone discuss, in the history section, where the unparalleled frenzy came from and why? - Mrcolj 14:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In the article on Django I've been in the habit of removing "see also" links to other frameworks, on the grounds that they're redundant with the much more complete link to the frameworks category which appears there, here, on the TurboGears article, etc., etc. I've argued for the same in the talk page for the article on TG, though I don't feel as comfortable removing them there. And now I'll argue for it here, though I won't remove them unless there's a consensus to do so.
So... given that all these articles already have a link to the full frameworks category list, is there a reason to pull out specific frameworks for special attention (and, over time, such lists tend to grow to resemble the category list) when that information's already available through the category link? Ubernostrum 04:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree -Roger Pack
The title says it all.
This article suffers from the experts-only perspective. It refers to too many highly specialized concepts that are unexplained or poorly connected to the other parts of the article, or to the article's referents.
Too many gratuitous assumptions are made about what the reader already knows or is expected to know. This is more in tune with a breakout session discussion at a computing conference vs. an explanatory article for an encyclopedia that is supposed to make topics accessible to the wider audience. While this kind of problem is sometimes unavoidable when discussing computing topics, and pervades computing-related texts, a more explanatory and descriptive approach is called for in this article.
Disagree. A separate part of the article near the top should give a more user friendly overview, but keep the detail below it - it is a good collection of information that would allow someone to decide whether to use RoR and compare to other languages (and this is probably this article's main use, so without the detail much of its usefulness would be gone). Wikipedia is altering what an encyclopaedia is thought of as being anyway.
Ideally an encyclopaedia would cater for a number of audiences with differing levels of background knowledge. Often it helps to have a relatively undemanding summary followed by detailed elaboration (and when I say 'summary' I don't have in mind the same kind of concise abstract as used in e.g. mathematical articles). That detailed elaboration may get necessarily technical but in this case, Wikipedia can help with its Wiki links. If all articles were written this way, readability would benefit significantly. Meeprophone ( talk) 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with this argument. I am not technically incompetent, programatically impaired, or an "Average Joe". After reading the opening paragraphs of this article, I have no clue what Ruby on Rails is, or what it does. I came here because I assumed that there would be a good, clear, general description of what it does, what it is for, and how it does what it does. S Schaffter ( talk) 05:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the reason behind Action Pack being redirected here? There is a TV programming block called Action Pack which is now under Universal TV's Action Pack. Should Action Pack be an disabig. page or the programming block be there with an disablink. Spshu 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. However, it is certainly a feather in the cap of Rails, and certainly an indicator of its viability, to highlight the projects, commercial projects and university endeavors undertaken in rails. That's how the entry was initially and why it expanded. It is unfair to Rails to only list a handful. We (FiveRuns) were put on the list by someone other than ourselves due to our support of RoR. BTW, are you involved in the project (RoR) in some capacity)? Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks, Steven Smith, CEO, FiveRuns
I have no interest in Ruby on Rails at all - I have an interesting in building an General readers Encylopedia. Why does a general readers encylopedia require more than 2 or 3 examples of it's use ? Indeed a case can be made that it requires no examples of it's use - most of the other software articles we have don't have them. --
Charlesknight
18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine that sentence-by-sentence edits are going to help this article very much. A full rewrite is in order. I've read quite a lot of tutorials on RoR, and many of them are really very good. So is the "Agile" book, which is the bible for RoR. Given the availability of such resources, it could be argued that this RoR page could be shortened to a paragraph with a few links to the outside web. (Certainly, the page should not be extended into a tutorial or a users manual ... these exist already, and RoR is complicated enough that a mini-tutorial or mini-manual is probably not realizable.)
The reasonable thing to do may be to delete almost all of the content and to write or encourage a very short, largely untechnical, replacement. This is a dramatic step, and it has the feel of aggression, so I guess nobody wants to do it. But, for those who would argue against it, I encourage asking the question: who is served by the present content?
The warning flag regarding the obscurity of this page is accurate. -- Dankelley 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* Okay, I suck at writing, and whoever deleted my crap is probably a hero. However, I'd like to ask one thing: Who is the current truncated version serving? Here's some of my suggestions:
In the present state, this article tells neither your boss or the corporate coder who ultimately picks the framework why Rails is any good or what makes it remarkable. Some of the technical details and examples are needed, like it or not. Just my opinion, of course... -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 20:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''William Shakespeare''' was a [[person]]. {{stub}}
(This article is a stub. You can help not upset the delicate balance between fact and controversy by not expanding it.)) I'm not saying we're a full-on web framework shopping site; I'm just saying that just reciting random, generic details doesn't make a good article, and people who are foolish enough to trust Wikipedia as a guide to frameworks that people have actually used for some things are going to be disappointed with this article. ('''William Shakespeare''' was a [[person]]. Like most enterprising people, he was equipped with two [[nostril]]s. He was highly [[literacy|literate]]. {{stub}}
) In its current state this article suffers from the software equivalent of
WP:HOLE. Would you prefer
Tetris article to boil down to "It's a puzzle game where you move blocks around and they vanish too"? Is the current explanation of the game's utterly contrived history confusing or excessive?Surely, it's worth mentioning the surge in RoR's popularity (it seems to be the "it" framework these days). How do we document/quantify this? More importantly, how do we objectively state why it is a big deal without violating NPOV or using "weasel words"? Josephgrossberg 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't wikipedia lost places to host your rails-site? (From Spiken)
I'm not an expert in this subject, but may I suggest the inclusion of Catalyst (software) to the see also section? Perl is still an important language to consider for web applications and deserves a representative there, and I would further submit that Catalyst is the most important Perl framwork to date. -- Pkchan 09:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Forget it; I just added a link to the list of frameworks; that seems like the most neutral compromise. Josephgrossberg 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is really underdeveloped and needs a lot of work. The lead section is not long enough. Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LEAD for more info on this. There are other problems with the article but lets get the lead fixed up first. I have tagged this article.-- 220.237.166.156 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The lead section also fails to mention how the "Rails" part of the name originated. It only explains the origin of "Ruby" indirectly, by following the link to Ruby (programming language). — Quicksilver T @ 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a bit more, what I would consider important, information to the introductory paragraph. I don't think it reads as well as it could do though. I imagine the article will grow in future to give more information in the body of the article (there is very little right now) on the extra topics I've included in the intro. Johnnykimble 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I added the Elastic Server On-Demand site and was trying to be informative. I am biased, I just thought that the fact that it is a pretty nice Rails-based system AND it lets you do something interesting with Rails was fun. I would still say editorial comment aside that if the goal is to show reasonably large scale real world projects then Elastic Server On-Demand is a valid reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.168.244 ( talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
How about the NASCAR website, it built in rails. Uaflyer ( talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should definitely add Twitter, which just hit Alexa #232 in the US and is now the highest-traffic Rails site out there. (The list of projects says not to add anything without talking here.) DumpButter 19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Matchbin.com is a worthy addition (I am a contractor for Matchbin). Matchbin has been on rails for a year now and is a very high traffic site. there are now hundreds of partner sites running on matchbin's technology ( which is built on rails). User:timcharper 15:32, 16 April 2007 (Mountain Standard Time)
good plan - User:timcharper 18 May 2007
Dailykos version 4, which should roll out sometime during the fall of 2007. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/14/184757/416 dKos has about 600 000 hits per day.
An IP address just added justin.tv without discussing it here, but it appears to me that it's a notable enough project to include based on the media coverage referenced there. IMO, it's probably fine to include any project notable enough for its own Wikipedia page, and if the list gets too long we can split it out into its own article. JavaTenor 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added mojohelpdesk.com to the list. It's a pretty good example of a useful app that serves small business and compete against the bigger guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.126.158 ( talk) 14:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What about a section for Ruby on Rails job sites? Like http://www.rorjobs.com
What this article is missing is a section on the significance or impact of Ruby on Rails. Why does Ruby on Rails matter? What is its sphere influence? These kinds of questions. Right now, the article has nothing about why Ruby on Rails is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article or why anyone should even care about Ruby on Rails. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about the subject, so if someone could step up to the plate, it would be much appreciated. -- The Wild Falcon 12:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
myself omkar sonawane from India.I want to ask u that how to write programs in this ROR?is ther any spaecial compiler for ROR? Thank U............... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.92.72 ( talk) 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've compiled a list of Rails links that I enjoy referencing and thought I would add them to this page. However, it seems that more and more people use wikipedia to SEO their site and I don't want to start a snow ball effect.
The current links are solid. For example, Railcast is one of my favorite podcasts and probably the best Rails podcast available. I for one feel that links to such great RAILS sources should be on the site. Adding my list of links seems like a double edged sword though. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeNaqvi ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? RoR's 2 principals are DRYCoc?! no thanks, I'll stick to my php libraries thank you very much.
It could not fail: someone had to insert the obnoxious tag
"This article or section is written like an advertisement." "Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view."
After thoroughly reading the article a third time, I honestly cannot find any infringement of the NPOV policy. I also cannot find any statement that deviates from objetivity, truth, or the basic facts. I wonder, How to write statements describing a subject matter in order to suit the tastes of several self-appointed 'critics' who have embarked on the noble mission of tagging, tagging, and tagging everything they come across, without ever stopping to add any valuable materials of amendments/corrections to existing texts? Tall order, no doubt. I'm removing the tag, and I'm inviting its 'author' to prove what the tag accuses the article of. Regards, -- AVM ( talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added a criticism section:
Hervegirod ( talk) 11:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that while typing "Ruby on" into WP search engine, one of the keywords I got was "Ruby_on_Iaails" which actually does forward to this article! so quick question..what's that about? Is that a common slang for RoR used anywhere, or just some funny move... -- K.G. ( talk)
The sentence "It is intended to be used with an Agile development methodology. . ." seems out of place, and a little bit OR. . . is there a source for this, or is it mere buzzword-associated between a popular framework and a trendy "development methodology"? Does something really, really bad happen if one tries to use RoR with a "non-agile" methodology? evildeathmath 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This article contracts itself in that it initially claims that Mongrel is the preferred web server and later claims that Thin is preferred. Probably conflicting editors at work. Anyone know which is right? Perhaps there shouldn't even be a claim on which is preferred. Tweisbach ( talk) 05:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed all but the official website link per WP:EL. All but one of the additional links can be found on the official homepage. There is no need to link to theother sites. Stop reverting. 16x9 ( talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the fact tags on most of the listed sites because they are already referenced by the citation at the beginning of the section (perhaps the cite should be repeated over the applicable items, as it does not apply to all of the sites). A later edit has tagged them all as "original research?" with an edit summary of "{{or}}". I'm wondering what is meant by this? The sites are referenced to rubyonrails.org, not the opinion of one or more editors here. -- skew-t ( talk) 02:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
ASP.NET differs from ASP.NET MVC and I think that section have to be there. As well as I know some frameworks like Django and Groovy are inspired by ruby on rails and I'm not sure about ASP.NET MVC. ICEAGE ( talk) 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping to find some mention in the article about the origin of the "on Rails" portion of the name. Was there any significance to it when RoR was named, or was it just "it sounds cool"? -- 140.142.20.229 ( talk) 22:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Ha, the answer is actually on this discussion page. Search for "struts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.184.234 ( talk) 04:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Ruby on Rails. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I've read quite a few blogs, articles, and comments about Ruby on Rails, and I still don't understand where it fits in the ecosystem. (I've done a good amount of programming, but not for webpages.)
1. could I just, if I wanted, use Ruby to do everything instead of using Rails?
2. if I use Rails, would I still use Ruby at all?
I'm starting to get the picture that I would still use Ruby for data manipulation and any non-trivial logic, and Rails would be in charge of putting it all on the screen. It seems that Rails just has a nice structured way to present everything, and eliminated a ton of manual or pre-packaged code to create the HTML and CSS.
Again, this is how it appears to me, and this was the section I was hoping to find in Wikipedia to clarify all this. Wikipequi ( talk) 03:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Ruby on Rails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is a cut and paste of the second reference in this article (in the infobox) that is not formatted properly, I couldn't locate it in the article to correct it:
{{cite web| https://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2018/12/4/Rails-5-2-2-has-been-released/%7Cwebsite=Ruby on Rails|author=rafaelfranca|accessdate=2018-12-4|title=Rails 5.2.2 has been released!}
If anyone can help, please correct this, thanks. Neptune's Trident ( talk) 00:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The redirect
Ruby on Яails has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6 § Ruby on Яails until a consensus is reached.
Duckmather (
talk)
04:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Ruby on Iaails has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6 § Ruby on Iaails until a consensus is reached.
Duckmather (
talk)
04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)