On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:54:45 +0900, JZ <spamerom / niet.com> wrote:
> Dnia Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:23:58 +0900, David Heinemeier Hansson
> napisal(a):
>> Rails does a bunch of start-up magic that makes CGI whole-fully
>> unsuitable for anything more than asserting that it works.
>
> Is it not strange? CGI PHP works quite fast. CGI adapter for
> pythonic applications server Webware works even very fast. What's
> wrong with Ruby and CGI? If it is so unuitable there should be
> warnings not to use CGI for Rails at all. I set up first simple
> Rails using examples from the web. Why every request consumes 100%
> of my AthlonXP 2800+ and takes so meny seconds? I have enough RAM,
> fast (RAID stripe) disks.
> 
> It is a pity there is no binary version of mod_ruby for win32. I
> can find only source tarballs. :(

There is no problem with Ruby and CGI (or much of anything else).
Ruwiki is a decently fast wiki application written in Ruby. There is
a problem with Rails and CGI, because the basic philosophy of Rails
is different.

Rails is best considered an application server, and as such is
expected to be running on your system full time (as far as I can
tell, it doesn't). Otherwise, you have to go through its extensive
compile process every time -- no, Ruby doesn't do bytecodes or
bytecode caching at this point.

Rails focusses on making the developer's job easier by making the
application easier to understand.

I'd love to be corrected, but I'm not sure that there's a "good"
CGI-friendly application framework for Ruby.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca