Thoughts on Rails

[rob]

I'm curious to see where everyone is on Rails, and how wonderful they think it is. I've heard everything from "It's the best thing ever" to "It's ok..", but I haven't heard any "It sucks..." :)

I think its great, but could use some better documentation and a few improvements. It does its job well however.

Voting time :)

[GnuVince]

Rails is good, however I would like to see it going the continuation-based route (maybe have it as another sort of controller), because I think that with more and more applications being moved from the desktop to the web, we, the programmers, need better than the GOTO-like method Rails is currently using.

[rob]

... snip... we, the programmers, need better than the GOTO-like method Rails is currently using.

Absolutely. While this makes things easy in small apps, in bigger ones it can make things start to look like spagetti.

[bluetechnx]

it's good. But I also think it is short on good "standard" documentation. This is something I think that Ruby libs lack in general.

[GnuVince]

Please explain the problem with the documentation. What's wrong with api.rubyonrails.org ? It's very complete, convers all methods in the system, it has many examples, what more could you want? All of Rails' .rb files have more comments than code!

[steve_d555]

Please explain the problem with the documentation. What's wrong with api.rubyonrails.org ? It's very complete, convers all methods in the system, it has many examples, what more could you want? All of Rails' .rb files have more comments than code!

Yes, I find api.rubyonrails.org very, very useful when I need help. It has everything documented, and documented well.

[rob]

api.rubyonrails.org is pretty good, but there are parts that are missing. Some functions aren't explained at all. However, since its a relatively new platform, that is understandable.

One thing I couldn't fault Ruby in general for is lack of documentation. I think however its not organized very well. With PHP, the manual provides all you need, right there. The ruby-docs site is laid out OK, but the whole RDoc idea could be more user-friendly I think.

Just my $0.02 ;)

[bluetechnx]

perhaps I'm getting spoiled by the "Agile Web Developement with Rails" book. Or perhaps I'm more used to JavaDoc styled API listings and docs.

I agree that api.rubyonrails.org is good.

I've been using gem_server to browse the API doc for all my gems (RoR) and just feel its not as easy to navigate get the whole "picture" of how components inter-relate (wrt RoR)

I don't mean to bag on this or anything really, its just when someone is trying to learn something new you shouldn't feel like your fighting the system to just comprehend or learn something. The gem_server output is much more opaque/bland than api.ror.com. api.ror.com is at least easier on the eyes with boxes and highlighting around codeblocks and examples.

feel free to offer suggestions and the like. My main resources are: gem_server (no net needed), api.ror.com, #rubyonrails, pragbook

[GnuVince]

perhaps I'm getting spoiled by the "Agile Web Developement with Rails" book. Or perhaps I'm more used to JavaDoc styled API listings and docs.

I agree that api.rubyonrails.org is good.

I've been using gem_server to browse the API doc for all my gems (RoR) and just feel its not as easy to navigate get the whole "picture" of how components inter-relate (wrt RoR)

I don't mean to bag on this or anything really, its just when someone is trying to learn something new you shouldn't feel like your fighting the system to just comprehend or learn something. The gem_server output is much more opaque/bland than api.ror.com. api.ror.com is at least easier on the eyes with boxes and highlighting around codeblocks and examples.

feel free to offer suggestions and the like. My main resources are: gem_server (no net needed), api.ror.com, #rubyonrails, pragbook

api.ror.com uses the jamis RDoc template. I don't know if it's possible to use it as a default when you build documentation from Gem