Talk:Ruby on Rails

message: 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)
thread_title: Rails in production

message: 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
:I'll second that. "Ruby on Rails led the charge among next-generation web application frameworks, popularizing features that are now considered standard, such as scaffolding, object-relational mapping and simple installation." This is completely unverifiable and I'm not even sure it even makes sense. If this weren't an open source project, it would sound like marketing copy.
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)
thread_title:  Significance 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Rails Injected 

message: 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)
replies: text: I changed it to this: "Rails attempts to maintain database-neutrality, application portability over different database systems, and usability of pre-existing databases for Rails application development as much as possible, though due to different feature sets of the RDBMSes, it is not completely guaranteed by the framework alone." I hope this is not too discouraging or negative in tone. I'm not a complete and utter Rails expert, but I think Rails/ActiveRecord is pretty much, pulledouttahat, 95% compatible what comes to the "common ground" of databases, it's the corner cases that give it trouble (or any framework, for that matter). And of course it's primarily geared toward users of MySQL/PostgreSQL/SQLite who get headache from Fancy Features in Big Boy Databases. =) And note the important bit "by framework alone"; Maybe the feature wasn't implemented by the Rails devs, but it doesn't mean it can't be implemented by others. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy Databases 

message: 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.
:I was confused about this a ways back, a full article seems reasonable to me. The general idea of full stack is "collection of independently produced code" (farmer's market, baker, butcher, fish market, etc) vs. full stack - "all-in-one solution" (supermarket). Samsm 02:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  I came here to say the same thing.  I do a bit of work on some other articles and came here today to see what RoR was, and that full stack term is just thrown in there.  It might mean something to people familiar with it, but it shouldn't be in the intro.Pizzamancer (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  full-stack?? 

message: Any relations between the two? Any other words/phrases like "XXX on XXXs"? Yao Ziyuan 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Ruby is Willy's spouse :) 67.180.161.183 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruby on Rails and [[WP:WoW|Willy on Wheels]]? 

message: 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?
: I've heard "DRY" as an acronym of "Don't Repeat Yourself" pretty often, though I've never heard of COC and especially not "DRY-COC". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronyms...? 

message: The examples section has become a list of adds (inbound links) for the sites in question.
:I'd suggest replacing the whole section with a link to Rails Wiki - Real World Usage except the Rails Wiki is in a semi-constant state of spam wreckage. Samsm 02:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links = Advertisement 

message: How about some info on how it got to be called Ruby on Rails? --24.249.108.133 23:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: 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)
replies: text: I do not agree -- The purpose of the "see also" section as it is used in most Wikipedia pages usually gives links that put the article's subject in context. Therefor there aught to be some link in this section to other frameworks, even if its only a list of other frameworks rather than individual ones. It would also be helpful to have some comparison of these frameworks in terms of functionality and popularity. Unless you are already convinced that Ruby is the best framework out there, this would be one of the main pieces of information a user would want to know. This article is wholly lacking in any such contextual information. I have therefor added a "List of web application frameworks" to the "See also" section. --Betamod 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to other frameworks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Action Pack 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment from Reldev 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have been doing incremental edits precisely because I think a near-total rewrite is very aggressive. I, personally, would be happy to replace everything from "Guiding Principles" to "Other Technical Notes" with a few paragraphs, but I'm afraid I'd get flamed for it. I suppose I could just go ahead an take a crack at it. Josephgrossberg 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is improving, as you are doing these deletions I see today.   I can't see why anyone would flame improvements to an article flagged as this one is.  BTW, there seems to be little need to list the release dates at that top section, and the text is quite off-putting with such details being listed.  --Dankelley 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This entry is supposed to be a brief summary of what Ruby on Rails is, for your average reader. Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for a product review; this is an encyclopedia. I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to make the case for why it's "remarkable." Remember: NPOV. I will, though, remove the version history; I agree with you and Dankelley that it is too lengthy. Josephgrossberg 21:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, forgive me for some stern words that follow - I'm only trying to think what's best for the article. Articles are supposed to describe what makes things so special. It's absolutely not in conflict with NPOV. (William Shakespeare was a person.  (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 nostrils. He was highly literate. ) 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?And think of it this way: Exactly how does the article, in its current state, justify its existence? It's exactly in the state where some poor user might slap an AfD on it: "This is appears to be Just Another Framework, it has a bit advertisatory intro, and the article itself doesn't have any claims of it meeting WP:SOFTWARE, all references are blogs and wikis." ...followed by a landslide-yet-not-so-speedy keep only because there's indeed tons of evidence, it's just not in the article. In it's current state, the article doesn't explain how it's different from Leethaksor's Set of Extremely Messy PHP Scripts Toolkit 0.01. Except, perhaps, it's spelled correctly throughout. And it says it's actually in 1.2 phase. Wow, as if version number is of any evidence. In conclusion, please please make people care. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no good answer to your challenge, because I think the success of Rails is debateable. For example, ActiveRecord (a cool object-relational mapper, with some nice hooks and syntactical sugar) isn't anything that Django lacks. Same goes for MVC, as you note above. Many of the Java frameworks are years older. And others have features that RoR lacks, such as Zope's (blech) fine-grained security. Personally, I think Rails benefitted from: the backing of a cool company, with cool people and cool sites; auspicious timing (coinciding with the Web 2.0 hype); a good (i.e. non-Java) language. But that's speculation, not fact. In any case, I've started a "talk" section below, to continue this thread. Josephgrossberg 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I just read the "What is Ruby on Rails" section of this article, and I still have no idea what it is, or what the "Rails" part is. I support any pressure to rewrite this article, because it's not very informative right now. 70.191.234.63 (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone rewrite this whole article? 

message: Shouldn't wikipedia lost places to host your rails-site? (From Spiken)
: I don't know that it's appropriate for an encylopedia article. Maybe an external link to a site listing hosts, instead of putting it inline in the article? Josephgrossberg 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd suggest that a list of hosts doesn't belong here.  Such a list belongs on the RoR site, where it can be kept up to date by experts, and where it sits alongside the RoR documentation.  I'm also a little uncomfortable with wikipedia providing free advertising for some selected companies.  And, finally, it seems to me that people looking up RoR are likely  to also look up Django, and so I think the two pages will be compared by wikipedians.  Well, the Django site doesn't list hosts, and this makes the present listing stand out ... negatively, in my personal view. --Dankelley 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hosts 

message: 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)
replies: text: Pkchan: Perl has been very important in the development of the web (IMHO, far less so in the past five years) but there is very little buzz about Catalyst. Is that particular product noteworthy enough, or just the best MVC offering among obscure Perl offerings? Josephgrossberg 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure how do you measure noteworthiness or obscurity, but from this listing it is used by a number of web applications such as del.icio.us, EditGrid, Vox among others.  --Pkchan 05:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "See Also" section could soon get out of hand if we start adding frameworks in other languages to it, but I do think Struts and Catalyst should be mentioned. Maybe a Category box is called for? Quaestor23 10:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a category box would be a great idea, for MVC web frameworks. Josephgrossberg 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Pkchan: I believe you are conflating Perl sites and Catalyst ones (for example, by including del.icio.us in that list). I'm not denying that that the Perl language is significant, I'm questioning whether or not any of its MVC frameworks are noteworthy. Why Catalyst and not Mason? Why not Jifty? And, before you know it, we have 50 "see also" links. AFAIK, that section isn't supposed to be a comprehensive list; it's supposed to provide a few examples of the most similar and/or significant projects. Josephgrossberg 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure your accusation of "conflating" is fair or justified: you asked for proof of noteworthiness (or disproof of "obscurity"), I provided the facts, and it's now "conflation".  Having said that I agree with your compromise; I guess you're asking essentially the same question as I did: if Symphony, why not Catalyst?  And it would be fair to all if none is listed here.  --Pkchan 02:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess you are right with Symphony. What I meant -- and perhaps I phrased this poorly -- was that Perl's success isn't the same thing as the success of Perl MVC tools. Apologies. Josephgrossberg 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion on see also section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you point to a tech article that you think has a good lead? Josephgrossberg 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_Framework and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform%2C_Enterprise_Edition and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML--220.237.166.156 15:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Awesome. Thanks for the examples! I will read them over and think about how we can better describe Rails without getting too technical. Josephgrossberg 18:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How did Rails become part of that name? Is it a reference to the scaffolding? Josephgrossberg 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think the goal was to show a sampling of the Rails projects out there, and not a comprehensive list. Honestly, I'm not sure about the best criteria for compiling that list of sites, though. :/ Josephgrossberg (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you have documentation of this? Is it just Community.NASCAR.com?  Josephgrossberg (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that Twitter is a worthy addition. Thanks for commenting on the Talk page; I think you're the first one to follow that guideline (self included). Josephgrossberg 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't heard any objections, so I went and added it. Josephgrossberg 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why don't you create a Matchbin wiki page first? Josephgrossberg 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I'm gonna alphabetize and put a better description, though. Can we confirm that Justin.tv uses Rails, though? This job opening seems to imply it. Josephgrossberg 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: After reading this discussion, I went ahead and added Blurb.com to the list (it also has its own wiki page. The site run on RoR and is a pretty interesting example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.3.162 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What makes it a *noteworthy* Rails site? That it's "useful"? That it "serves small business"? That sounds like a pretty weak case. Josephgrossberg 19:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In an encyclopedia article? No. Josephgrossberg (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding More Projects 

message: 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)
thread_title:  how to write program? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for being considerate enough to discuss it first. I recommend you put those links on your blog, or the like, because they are one person's *opinion* of the best/most useful Rails links and Wikipedia is not a linkfarm nor a directory. Josephgrossberg (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Hopefully this will set a precedent. --MoeNaqvi (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a handful of RoR examples that were deleted by Josephgrossberg. I don't consider a list of highly esteemed websites using RoR to be a linkfarm/directory. Actually, when I read about a (to me) new technology, one of the things I'm most interested in is who's currently using that technology. I shouldn't need to go to somebody's blog to learn that. All the RoR example sites I mentioned have high PageRanks/Alexa ranks.ZingFu (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "link farm" was too harsh a term. But the question is -- where do you draw the line? If you include those sites, why not one more? And then one more after that? Also, it's consistent -- Django, Merb, Drupal, Symfony, Spring, Struts, Tapestry, etc. don't have a list of "sites using X" in their articles either. Josephgrossberg (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Django, Drupal etc. should have a short section leading to examples of practical uses - for the reasons I mentioned above. Where to draw the line? Well, I actually happen to trust the community of WP editors to do that. It works so well on several other pages so why shouldn't we be able to handle it here?ZingFu (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Links  or Advertisement Debate 

message: Are you serious? RoR's 2 principals are DRYCoc?! no thanks, I'll stick to my php libraries thank you very much.
: What does this have to do with the Wikipedia article? Josephgrossberg (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRYCoC?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Maybe the user had different intent and just wasn't familiar with a more applicable tag? I'd be interested to hear their case because I've seen appropriate uses of the "advertisement" label, and this isn't one of them. Josephgrossberg (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree. This article very much reads as an advertisement. Deserved or not, RoR has a reputation for enthusiasm outweighing substance and this article does nothing to dispel that impression. NPOV would require considerable editing and a bona fide examination of extant and readily-available criticism of RoR - performance, documentation, standards, database locking, threading, procs vs blocks, etc. As it stands the article is meaningless. Cosmo7 (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Standards, threading and procs vs blocks are Ruby issues, not Rails issues. The complaints about sparse documentation have died down considerably from, say, two years ago. Furthermore, I don't see "criticism" sections in competing frameworks' articles, so I don't believe that's absolutely necessary (though the anti-Rails backlash/jealousy could merit a mention). Josephgrossberg (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stalking me and editing my talk page because I have a different opinion than you is inappropriate. By definition, for the article to have NPOV it should be equally useful to proponents and opponents of Rails.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmo7 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A user's page is the appropriate place to leave a message: "User talk pages are a way (other than email) in which others may contact a specific editor." -Wikipedia:User_talk_page I have removed the personal remark I made, though; I agree it is not appropriate. Josephgrossberg (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The template was added by 24.57.150.2 in this edit, in case anyone wishes to discuss this directly with the contributor involved. Michael Slone (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I definitely think the Technical Overview section reads like an advertisement. Language like "noteworthy" is clearly biased and does not belong in an encyclopedia. MykellM (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement tag 

message: I just added a criticism section:
* There was already a critic in the Recent Developments paragraph, about Rails breaking backward compatibility (however we should find a source for that, there is none)
* an older critic about Rails trademark was deleted long time ago, and I think it was worth mentioning
* also (but I did not add it yet), there was a lot of buzz more than one year ago about Twitter having scalability problems because using Ruby, but it was more a Rails problem (see that I'm not saying that there was really a performance problems with Twitter using Rails, just that a lot of sources said that at that moment). I did not add it for now, but I think its worth mentioning in this paragraph. See for example this interview of one Twitter developer (OK, its in April 2007) , or this one here: . I'm not slapping Rails, I'm only saying that performance / scalability problems are (real or imagined) problems that are discussed in a lot of sources.
Hervegirod (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for it, if it can be handled in an encyclopedic article and not just heresay and/or linking to blogs and essays grounded entirely in opinion -- i.e. "Rails sucks because I don't like XYZ aspect of it". What you wrote is fine, IMHO -- but is lack of backwards-compatibility really a big criticism of Rails? I don't find it to be much (any?) more of an issue than it is in other frameworks. Josephgrossberg (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: 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)
: Hmm. Looks like the order of events is this: Damian Yerrick created redirect "Ruby on Яails" way back in 2006 (with comment "someone lock this so Willy can't do anything bad" - naturally no one protected it =), and then, in March 2008, Eubot automatically created "Ruby on Iaails" as a "non-diacritic" redirect. In other words, cyrillic Я transliterated to Ia. (Curiously, the bot did not create "Ruby on Yaails". =) I was under the impression that Willy-may-his-axles-rust-in-peace-On-Wheels is long gone, nuked, stapled, spindled and carried to the junkheap behind the shed; maybe these should nowadays be nuked under CSD R3 (especially the "Iaails" redirect, because that's frankly something that no one is going to use). If no one else does this within a few days, I'll probably delete them, but not yet unless some people have something to add... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the off chance that either of you are still around on Wikipedia, I finally got around to RfDing both redirects (fifteen years(!) after you first noticed them), and predictably both were deleted. Thanks for having noticed both! Duckmather (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: A little odd alternative article name

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mongrel vs. Thin (Preferred Web Server) 

message: 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 "". 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)
replies: text: The source is bad.  It is a primary source which is not a WP:RS.  What is the point of the list in the first place?  If the nytimes or another RS wrote an article and about a website/service and its use of ruby on rails I could see a sentence or two being added to the history section of the article but there is no need for a list of unverifiable websites that ruby on rails may or may not contribute anything to its success or failure.  16x9 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sites themselves would be the primary source in this case, rather than rubyonrails.org, but even so I don't think it would be original research as there is no editor interpretation, nor would that necessarily make it unreliable. It could use a better source, particularly one that makes some meaning of it, but that doesn't mean it is unverifiable. I didn't write it, but I think the purpose of the section is to show that there are prominent uses of Rails, showing notability among other things. I do agree it would be better in prose rather than a list bordering on trivia. --skew-t (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Production 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable, published sources that actually say that each of these 'were inspired by RoR'? if so, list them here and we'll all have a look and see if it's verifiable. --Nigelj (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see the reference for Grails and msdn mentioned that MVC in ruby on rails proved it and ASP.NET MVC confirmed it and I know Django is inspired by ruby on rails but I couldn't find any reference but if I found, write it here. ICEAGE (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Cakephp also is inspired by ruby on rails but I don't know my references are reliable or not/. There some other frameworks like Catalyst, Symfony and ColdFusion on Wheels that mentioned in Model View Controller were inspired by ruby on rails. ICEAGE (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for listing other frameworks influenced by RoR, where verifiable, but I think the section as previously written is not the best way to do it; statements like "It was the simplicity and productivity benefits offered by this framework which prompted others to change. At some point rails was touted as the silver bullet in software engineering." aren't neutral and pretty hard to source in a meaningful way.  A better way to go about it might be to add something like the "influenced" field shown at the top of several of the programming language pages (see Ruby (programming language) for an example, and list the other frameworks there.evildeathmath 14:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to be careful too, to distinguish things influenced by the language Ruby, and things influenced by the MVC web paradigm. Neither of these is enough to say 'influenced by RoR'. --Nigelj (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration for other frameworks 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've always thought that was a metaphor using rail-based transportation to illustrate how the framework's "convention over configuration" and "opinionated software" principles directed users to follow a specific path of application development. I am unable to find a source verifying that inference, though (kinda hard to Google this). Josephgrossberg (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Someone on hacker news claimed it was a reference to lines of cocaine. 
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)

text: That is hardly an authoritative answer. It is more speculation that anything else. It doesn't have a link to any references. While it does sound more plausible, we need a solid reference to point to. --Pchov (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "on Rails" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ruby on Rails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/interviews/david-heinemeier-hansson-rails.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070805232643/http://rethink.unspace.ca:80/2007/7/23/beginning-rails-from-novice-to-professional to http://rethink.unspace.ca/2007/7/23/beginning-rails-from-novice-to-professional
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.radicalbehavior.com/5-question-interview-with-twitter-developer-alex-payne/?
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is Rail's place in the webpage programming ecosystem? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209055716/http://rubyonrails.org/merb to http://rubyonrails.org/merb
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707080544/http://rubyonrails.org/deploy to http://rubyonrails.org/deploy
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212173926/http://rubyonrails.org/download to http://rubyonrails.org/download
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radicalbehavior.com/5-question-interview-with-twitter-developer-alex-payne/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111221011816/http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-11/tech/30035869_1_ruby-rails-custom-software to http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-11/tech/30035869_1_ruby-rails-custom-software
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Second reference in article is incorrectly formatted 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  Duckmather (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Ruby on Яails]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  Duckmather (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Ruby on Iaails]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]