I'm having the same thoughts. I know nothing about Ruby, and I find the concepts hard to understand and the code hard to read. However, if I remember correctly, the guys were advised by Pivotal Labs and such so I guess they have a pretty good reason to use the language. Nevertheless, the project will surely enjoy less developer support by being written in Ruby and would have a less steep learning curve if it were written in PHP.
For now, as I'm trying to understand Ruby as fast as possible, I can't really say if it would be worth it porting this code to PHP. (doesn't seem to be _that_ much code though...)
> I'm having the same thoughts. I know nothing about Ruby, and I find the > concepts hard to understand and the code hard to read. > However, if I remember correctly, the guys were advised by Pivotal Labs and > such so I guess they have a pretty good reason to use the language. > Nevertheless, the project will surely enjoy less developer support by being > written in Ruby and would have a less steep learning curve if it were > written in PHP.
> For now, as I'm trying to understand Ruby as fast as possible, I can't > really say if it would be worth it porting this code to PHP. (doesn't seem > to be _that_ much code though...)
> - Luuk
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Do you think it will be possible to port Diaspora to another programming >> language like PHP ?
>> I am not very confident with Ruby but I really would like to participate. >> Moreover, it seems simpliest to host PHP apps instead of ruby ones.
On Sep 16, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Clayton McIlrath <clay.mcilr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it could easily be ported to PHP.. so long as the websockets would work the same.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Luuk de Waal Malefijt <cooper...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm having the same thoughts. I know nothing about Ruby, and I find the > concepts hard to understand and the code hard to read. > However, if I remember correctly, the guys were advised by Pivotal Labs and > such so I guess they have a pretty good reason to use the language. > Nevertheless, the project will surely enjoy less developer support by being > written in Ruby and would have a less steep learning curve if it were > written in PHP.
> For now, as I'm trying to understand Ruby as fast as possible, I can't > really say if it would be worth it porting this code to PHP. (doesn't seem > to be _that_ much code though...)
As long as the socket protocol is not too tied to ruby's serialization facilities we should be able to port. This has also been my intention, because I like PHP more but I want to learn more about ruby too during my dealings with the code. Maybe I'll just end up getting comfortable enough w the language though :-)
In any case, being able to implement diaspora seed implementations in any language proves its design so i'd be down for helping on a port even for purely academic reasons.
I'm a Ruby non Rails I kind of a Sinatra-ist + old skool Ruby + more a Java man ... reading Ruby, understanding rack and gems et al... is no problem
to me it seems 2 areas a) the web application which is in Rails 3 + mongodb b) the communication bet. instances, which is yet defined well. need a proper API, seed etc...
seems if (b) becomes well defined, than dia"spore"s can be in any language or form, even mobile
bummer
________________________________ From: Luuk de Waal Malefijt <cooper...@gmail.com> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 9:01:06 PM Subject: Re: Not RoR port
I'm having the same thoughts. I know nothing about Ruby, and I find the concepts hard to understand and the code hard to read. However, if I remember correctly, the guys were advised by Pivotal Labs and such so I guess they have a pretty good reason to use the language. Nevertheless, the project will surely enjoy less developer support by being written in Ruby and would have a less steep learning curve if it were written in PHP.
For now, as I'm trying to understand Ruby as fast as possible, I can't really say if it would be worth it porting this code to PHP. (doesn't seem to be _that_ much code though...)
- Luuk
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:01 am, Luuk de Waal Malefijt <cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm having the same thoughts. I know nothing about Ruby, and I find the
> concepts hard to understand and the code hard to read.
Can you disambiguate "hard to read"? That seems an entailment of "I
know
nothing about Ruby," as would be your claim of "the concepts [being]
hard to understand."
> However, if I remember correctly, the guys were advised by Pivotal Labs and
> such so I guess they have a pretty good reason to use the language.
That's an assumption: maybe they were using the language before. But
I'd agree that Pivotal is a strong Ruby/Rails shop, and so it would be
a
natural fit.
> Nevertheless, the project will surely enjoy less developer support by being
> written in Ruby and would have a less steep learning curve if it were
> written in PHP.
Disagree. They're more likely to enjoy _better quality_ developer
support.
The effort needs good software engineers who understand the MVC
approach and who do test driven development. "More developers" does
not mean "better product."
> For now, as I'm trying to understand Ruby as fast as possible,
That's the way to go. It's worth the effort.
> I can't
> really say if it would be worth it porting this code to PHP. (doesn't seem
> to be _that_ much code though...)
There are a number of very good reasons why "porting this code to
PHP"
would be a truly bad idea, not the least of which is this: a true port
*must*
be feature-synchronized with the state of the Ruby/Rails
implementation.
Wouldn't happen. So you'd cause confusion and frustration: "Hey, I can
do X in the reference Rails implementation, but not the PHP
implementation;
when are you guys going to get your act together and get that right?"
*Shudder*
The diaspora guys have made the decision to do software right, and
they're
being mentored and assisted by those who do it right. If you're
sincerely
interesting in helping, you'll find the learning curve - while a bit
steep - genuinely
worth your effort.
Instead of complaining about the excellent language & framework the
core developers have chosen, how about instead concentrating your
efforts
on the github directory "spec" and getting a feel for the test-
centered
approach they use? There are a number of us, myself included, who I'm
sure would be happy to help you understand how code gets constructed
in this type of framework. Let us know, we'll help.
Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to another language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. Those who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know anything about Rails.
sorry-imho I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is unhealthy don't know anything about Ruby!!!
if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel very sad for the whole Team A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source initiatives B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port is justified
+1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & there are few languages that will create less problems than there are facing now ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
chill,out, bummer
________________________________ From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to another language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. Those who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know anything about Rails.
I'm a Rails developer through-and-through, but I don't agree that Ruby
is the One True Language for this project. I think a better solution
would be to have a solid, well-documented protocol and let the PHP
guys (and whoever else wants to) give it the ol' college try.
If this is really going to have a shot at taking on Facebook, we're
going to need as many dev teams as we can get working on kick ass
implementations around the board.
Jarin
On Sep 16, 7:39 am, Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 16, 9:01 am, Luuk de Waal Malefijt <cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm having the same thoughts. I know nothing about Ruby, and I find the
> > concepts hard to understand and the code hard to read.
> Can you disambiguate "hard to read"? That seems an entailment of "I
> know
> nothing about Ruby," as would be your claim of "the concepts [being]
> hard to understand."
> > However, if I remember correctly, the guys were advised by Pivotal Labs and
> > such so I guess they have a pretty good reason to use the language.
> That's an assumption: maybe they were using the language before. But
> I'd agree that Pivotal is a strong Ruby/Rails shop, and so it would be
> a
> natural fit.
> > Nevertheless, the project will surely enjoy less developer support by being
> > written in Ruby and would have a less steep learning curve if it were
> > written in PHP.
> Disagree. They're more likely to enjoy _better quality_ developer
> support.
> The effort needs good software engineers who understand the MVC
> approach and who do test driven development. "More developers" does
> not mean "better product."
> > For now, as I'm trying to understand Ruby as fast as possible,
> That's the way to go. It's worth the effort.
> > I can't
> > really say if it would be worth it porting this code to PHP. (doesn't seem
> > to be _that_ much code though...)
> There are a number of very good reasons why "porting this code to
> PHP"
> would be a truly bad idea, not the least of which is this: a true port
> *must*
> be feature-synchronized with the state of the Ruby/Rails
> implementation.
> Wouldn't happen. So you'd cause confusion and frustration: "Hey, I can
> do X in the reference Rails implementation, but not the PHP
> implementation;
> when are you guys going to get your act together and get that right?"
> *Shudder*
> The diaspora guys have made the decision to do software right, and
> they're
> being mentored and assisted by those who do it right. If you're
> sincerely
> interesting in helping, you'll find the learning curve - while a bit
> steep - genuinely
> worth your effort.
> Instead of complaining about the excellent language & framework the
> core developers have chosen, how about instead concentrating your
> efforts
> on the github directory "spec" and getting a feel for the test-
> centered
> approach they use? There are a number of us, myself included, who I'm
> sure would be happy to help you understand how code gets constructed
> in this type of framework. Let us know, we'll help.
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Do you think it will be possible to port Diaspora to another programming
> > > language like PHP ?
> > > I am not very confident with Ruby but I really would like to participate.
> > > Moreover, it seems simpliest to host PHP apps instead of ruby ones.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Jarin Udom <ja...@robotmo.de> wrote: > I'm a Rails developer through-and-through, but I don't agree that Ruby > is the One True Language for this project.
No one made such a claim. However, it _is_ the One Present Language for this project, and you're going to have to make an extraordinary argument for a multi-language approach at this early stage.
Consider the engineering implications first, rather than falsely framing this as a religious issue.
> I think a better solution > would be to have a solid, well-documented protocol and let the PHP > guys (and whoever else wants to) give it the ol' college try.
Sure, as long as it's communicated that the core developers are in no way obligated to support the PHP effort.
> If this is really going to have a shot at taking on Facebook, we're > going to need as many dev teams as we can get working on kick ass > implementations around the board.
It would be a very good thing to get *one* very good implementation done first.
> On Sep 16, 7:39 am, Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Sep 16, 9:01 am, Luuk de Waal Malefijt <cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm having the same thoughts. I know nothing about Ruby, and I find the >> > concepts hard to understand and the code hard to read.
>> Can you disambiguate "hard to read"? That seems an entailment of "I >> know >> nothing about Ruby," as would be your claim of "the concepts [being] >> hard to understand."
>> > However, if I remember correctly, the guys were advised by Pivotal Labs and >> > such so I guess they have a pretty good reason to use the language.
>> That's an assumption: maybe they were using the language before. But >> I'd agree that Pivotal is a strong Ruby/Rails shop, and so it would be >> a >> natural fit.
>> > Nevertheless, the project will surely enjoy less developer support by being >> > written in Ruby and would have a less steep learning curve if it were >> > written in PHP.
>> Disagree. They're more likely to enjoy _better quality_ developer >> support. >> The effort needs good software engineers who understand the MVC >> approach and who do test driven development. "More developers" does >> not mean "better product."
>> > For now, as I'm trying to understand Ruby as fast as possible,
>> That's the way to go. It's worth the effort.
>> > I can't >> > really say if it would be worth it porting this code to PHP. (doesn't seem >> > to be _that_ much code though...)
>> There are a number of very good reasons why "porting this code to >> PHP" >> would be a truly bad idea, not the least of which is this: a true port >> *must* >> be feature-synchronized with the state of the Ruby/Rails >> implementation. >> Wouldn't happen. So you'd cause confusion and frustration: "Hey, I can >> do X in the reference Rails implementation, but not the PHP >> implementation; >> when are you guys going to get your act together and get that right?"
>> *Shudder*
>> The diaspora guys have made the decision to do software right, and >> they're >> being mentored and assisted by those who do it right. If you're >> sincerely >> interesting in helping, you'll find the learning curve - while a bit >> steep - genuinely >> worth your effort.
>> Instead of complaining about the excellent language & framework the >> core developers have chosen, how about instead concentrating your >> efforts >> on the github directory "spec" and getting a feel for the test- >> centered >> approach they use? There are a number of us, myself included, who I'm >> sure would be happy to help you understand how code gets constructed >> in this type of framework. Let us know, we'll help.
>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> wrote: >> > > Hi,
>> > > Do you think it will be possible to port Diaspora to another programming >> > > language like PHP ?
>> > > I am not very confident with Ruby but I really would like to participate. >> > > Moreover, it seems simpliest to host PHP apps instead of ruby ones.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: > sorry-imho
Nice salutation.
> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is unhealthy > don't know anything about Ruby!!!
You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a view, and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill for some applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this case. Please exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the vehemence of your opinion.
> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel very sad > for the whole Team
Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source initiatives
No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the effort in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source initiative."
> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, it _could_ mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who couldn't be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" prematurely.
You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting language, a useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering discipline. You should embrace the opportunity.
> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port is > justified
You need to define "worse than."
> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & there are few > languages that will create less problems than there are facing now > ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a bit, I see.
> chill,out,
Who's not chill, dude?
> bummer
Russell
> ________________________________ > From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to another > language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. Those > who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know anything > about Rails.
________________________________ From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: > sorry-imho
Nice salutation.
> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is unhealthy > don't know anything about Ruby!!!
You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a view, and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill for some applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this case. Please exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the vehemence of your opinion.
> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel very sad > for the whole Team
Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source initiatives
No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the effort in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source initiative."
> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, it _could_ mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who couldn't be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" prematurely.
You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting language, a useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering discipline. You should embrace the opportunity.
> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port is > justified
You need to define "worse than."
> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & there are few > languages that will create less problems than there are facing now > ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a bit, I see.
> chill,out,
Who's not chill, dude?
> bummer
Russell
> ________________________________ > From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to another > language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. Those > who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know anything > about Rails.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: > its a +1 to Stick to Ruby
> apologize for the excessive exclamation
> immature port bad
It's "premature," though "immature" is not a bad characterization of the non-controversy some are attempting to inject.
> still must dampen Rails fanaticism
Cf. my earlier statement about strawman arguments.
> see to believe
Why don't you put some of this energy you seem to have into helping shape the software in its present incarnation, instead of adopting this cynical hipster online persona? You'll be helping in a genuine way, not building some kind of tenuous street cred. Dude.
> -strawman
I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your name.
> ________________________________ > From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> sorry-imho
> Nice salutation.
>> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is unhealthy >> don't know anything about Ruby!!!
> You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a view, > and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill for some > applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this case. Please > exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
> One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the vehemence > of your opinion.
>> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel very sad >> for the whole Team
> Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
>> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source initiatives
> No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the effort > in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source > initiative."
>> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, it _could_ > mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who couldn't > be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" > prematurely.
> You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting language, a > useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering discipline. You > should embrace the opportunity.
>> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port is >> justified
> You need to define "worse than."
>> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & there are few >> languages that will create less problems than there are facing now >> ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
> Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a bit, I see.
>> chill,out,
> Who's not chill, dude?
>> bummer
> Russell
>> ________________________________ >> From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> >> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com >> Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM >> Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
>> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to >> another >> language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. Those >> who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know anything >> about Rails.
yes this is a really bad thread. agree lets focus on Diaspora per se
- han @ "strawman"
________________________________ From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 12:10:50 AM Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: > its a +1 to Stick to Ruby
> apologize for the excessive exclamation
> immature port bad
It's "premature," though "immature" is not a bad characterization of the non-controversy some are attempting to inject.
> still must dampen Rails fanaticism
Cf. my earlier statement about strawman arguments.
> see to believe
Why don't you put some of this energy you seem to have into helping shape the software in its present incarnation, instead of adopting this cynical hipster online persona? You'll be helping in a genuine way, not building some kind of tenuous street cred. Dude.
> -strawman
I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your name.
> ________________________________ > From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> sorry-imho
> Nice salutation.
>> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is unhealthy >> don't know anything about Ruby!!!
> You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a view, > and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill for some > applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this case. Please > exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
> One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the vehemence > of your opinion.
>> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel very sad >> for the whole Team
> Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
>> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source initiatives
> No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the effort > in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source > initiative."
>> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, it _could_ > mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who couldn't > be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" > prematurely.
> You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting language, a > useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering discipline. You > should embrace the opportunity.
>> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port is >> justified
> You need to define "worse than."
>> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & there are few >> languages that will create less problems than there are facing now >> ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
> Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a bit, I see.
>> chill,out,
> Who's not chill, dude?
>> bummer
> Russell
>> ________________________________ >> From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> >> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com >> Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM >> Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
>> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to >> another >> language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. Those >> who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know anything >> about Rails.
On Sep 16, 8:45 am, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> wrote:
> Do you think it will be possible to port Diaspora to another programming
> language like PHP ?
"port" is definitely the wrong word. There will eventually be
Diaspora-compatible implementations in any/all popular languages.
Having only one implementation of anything this big is a horrid idea.
There will also be implementations made for licensing reasons. In
fact, status.net (in PHP) will probably soon be compatible with
Diaspora for at least status updates.
So, if you want another language, either wait or write another
implementation. Replacing the one they've got would be silly, though.
Unless that's what you meant, in which case, ignore me.
Just asked to know if someone thinked about some port. Never said PHP is better than Rail or anything like that.
I understand the project is too young to plan it. But, you cannot assume that if people had the time to help with their own skill, they will also have the time to learn new ones in order to acquire enought experience to be able to simply understand what is done. Keeping high level skills take a lot of time that is hard to handle.
Debate is close. We will have to wait to see this running on our LAMP environment ;)
-- Edouard
2010/9/16 Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > its a +1 to Stick to Ruby
> > apologize for the excessive exclamation
> > immature port bad
> It's "premature," though "immature" is not a bad characterization > of the non-controversy some are attempting to inject.
> > still must dampen Rails fanaticism
> Cf. my earlier statement about strawman arguments.
> > see to believe
> Why don't you put some of this energy you seem to have into > helping shape the software in its present incarnation, instead of > adopting this cynical hipster online persona? You'll be helping in > a genuine way, not building some kind of tenuous street cred. Dude.
> > -strawman
> I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your name.
> Russell
> > ________________________________ > > From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> > > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM > > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> sorry-imho
> > Nice salutation.
> >> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is unhealthy > >> don't know anything about Ruby!!!
> > You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a view, > > and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill for some > > applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this case. > Please > > exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
> > One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the > vehemence > > of your opinion.
> >> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel very > sad > >> for the whole Team
> > Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
> >> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source initiatives
> > No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the effort > > in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source > > initiative."
> >> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, it > _could_ > > mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who couldn't > > be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" > > prematurely.
> > You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting language, a > > useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering discipline. You > > should embrace the opportunity.
> >> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port is > >> justified
> > You need to define "worse than."
> >> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & there are > few > >> languages that will create less problems than there are facing now > >> ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
> > Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a bit, I > see.
> >> chill,out,
> > Who's not chill, dude?
> >> bummer
> > Russell
> >> ________________________________ > >> From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> > >> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > >> Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM > >> Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> >> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to > >> another > >> language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. > Those > >> who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know > anything > >> about Rails.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 20:08, Singpolyma <singpol...@singpolyma.net> wrote: > On Sep 16, 8:45 am, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> wrote: >> Do you think it will be possible to port Diaspora to another programming >> language like PHP ?
> "port" is definitely the wrong word. There will eventually be > Diaspora-compatible implementations in any/all popular languages. > Having only one implementation of anything this big is a horrid idea. > There will also be implementations made for licensing reasons. In > fact, status.net (in PHP) will probably soon be compatible with > Diaspora for at least status updates.
> So, if you want another language, either wait or write another > implementation. Replacing the one they've got would be silly, though.
> Unless that's what you meant, in which case, ignore me.
It's certainly likely, that there will be alternative implementations at some point. But perhaps, it's best to wait till the reference implementation is stable? ;-)
-- Johan Brinch, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen
I've got it running on LAMP and took less than 10 mins to setup. Even though I'm a PHP guy (by demand, not by choice), I do agree Rails is a great way to go.. porting is not needed if the Diaspora teams does a good job making an installer and document the hell out of it. A PHP port might happen in time just because of the wider support and adoption, but that's not worth arguing about. Let's refine what we have and spend our time on construction and progress rather than peddy arguments over development preferences.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> wrote: > Oh my god ! Where are you going guys ?
> Just asked to know if someone thinked about some port. Never said PHP is > better than Rail or anything like that.
> I understand the project is too young to plan it. But, you cannot assume > that if people had the time to help with their own skill, they will also > have the time to learn new ones in order to acquire enought experience to be > able to simply understand what is done. > Keeping high level skills take a lot of time that is hard to handle.
> Debate is close. > We will have to wait to see this running on our LAMP environment ;)
> -- > Edouard
> 2010/9/16 Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > its a +1 to Stick to Ruby
>> > apologize for the excessive exclamation
>> > immature port bad
>> It's "premature," though "immature" is not a bad characterization >> of the non-controversy some are attempting to inject.
>> > still must dampen Rails fanaticism
>> Cf. my earlier statement about strawman arguments.
>> > see to believe
>> Why don't you put some of this energy you seem to have into >> helping shape the software in its present incarnation, instead of >> adopting this cynical hipster online persona? You'll be helping in >> a genuine way, not building some kind of tenuous street cred. Dude.
>> > -strawman
>> I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your name.
>> Russell
>> > ________________________________ >> > From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> >> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com >> > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM >> > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> sorry-imho
>> > Nice salutation.
>> >> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is unhealthy >> >> don't know anything about Ruby!!!
>> > You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a view, >> > and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill for >> some >> > applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this case. >> Please >> > exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
>> > One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the >> vehemence >> > of your opinion.
>> >> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel very >> sad >> >> for the whole Team
>> > Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
>> >> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source initiatives
>> > No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the effort >> > in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source >> > initiative."
>> >> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
>> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, it >> _could_ >> > mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who couldn't >> > be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" >> > prematurely.
>> > You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting language, a >> > useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering discipline. You >> > should embrace the opportunity.
>> >> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port is >> >> justified
>> > You need to define "worse than."
>> >> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & there are >> few >> >> languages that will create less problems than there are facing now >> >> ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
>> > Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a bit, I >> see.
>> >> chill,out,
>> > Who's not chill, dude?
>> >> bummer
>> > Russell
>> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> >> >> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com >> >> Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM >> >> Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
>> >> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to >> >> another >> >> language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. >> Those >> >> who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know >> anything >> >> about Rails.
> I've got it running on LAMP and took less than 10 mins to setup. Even though > I'm a PHP guy (by demand, not by choice), I do agree Rails is a great way to > go.. porting is not needed if the Diaspora teams does a good job making an > installer and document the hell out of it. A PHP port might happen in time > just because of the wider support and adoption, but that's not worth arguing > about. Let's refine what we have and spend our time on construction and > progress rather than peddy arguments over development preferences.
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> wrote:
>> Oh my god ! Where are you going guys ?
>> Just asked to know if someone thinked about some port. Never said PHP is >> better than Rail or anything like that.
>> I understand the project is too young to plan it. But, you cannot assume >> that if people had the time to help with their own skill, they will also >> have the time to learn new ones in order to acquire enought experience to be >> able to simply understand what is done. >> Keeping high level skills take a lot of time that is hard to handle.
>> Debate is close. >> We will have to wait to see this running on our LAMP environment ;)
>> -- >> Edouard
>> 2010/9/16 Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com>
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> > its a +1 to Stick to Ruby
>>> > apologize for the excessive exclamation
>>> > immature port bad
>>> It's "premature," though "immature" is not a bad characterization >>> of the non-controversy some are attempting to inject.
>>> > still must dampen Rails fanaticism
>>> Cf. my earlier statement about strawman arguments.
>>> > see to believe
>>> Why don't you put some of this energy you seem to have into >>> helping shape the software in its present incarnation, instead of >>> adopting this cynical hipster online persona? You'll be helping in >>> a genuine way, not building some kind of tenuous street cred. Dude.
>>> > -strawman
>>> I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your name.
>>> Russell
>>> > ________________________________ >>> > From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> >>> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com >>> > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM >>> > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
>>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> sorry-imho
>>> > Nice salutation.
>>> >> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is unhealthy >>> >> don't know anything about Ruby!!!
>>> > You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a view, >>> > and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill for >>> some >>> > applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this case. >>> Please >>> > exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
>>> > One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the >>> vehemence >>> > of your opinion.
>>> >> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel very >>> sad >>> >> for the whole Team
>>> > Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
>>> >> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source initiatives
>>> > No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the effort >>> > in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source >>> > initiative."
>>> >> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
>>> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, it >>> _could_ >>> > mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who couldn't >>> > be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" >>> > prematurely.
>>> > You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting language, a >>> > useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering discipline. You >>> > should embrace the opportunity.
>>> >> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port is >>> >> justified
>>> > You need to define "worse than."
>>> >> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & there are >>> few >>> >> languages that will create less problems than there are facing now >>> >> ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
>>> > Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a bit, I >>> see.
>>> >> chill,out,
>>> > Who's not chill, dude?
>>> >> bummer
>>> > Russell
>>> >> ________________________________ >>> >> From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> >>> >> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com >>> >> Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM >>> >> Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
>>> >> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to >>> >> another >>> >> language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. >>> Those >>> >> who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know >>> anything >>> >> about Rails.
> On Sep 16, 2010 3:00 PM, "Clayton McIlrath" <clay.mcilr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I've got it running on LAMP and took less than 10 mins to setup. Even > though > > I'm a PHP guy (by demand, not by choice), I do agree Rails is a great way > to > > go.. porting is not needed if the Diaspora teams does a good job making > an > > installer and document the hell out of it. A PHP port might happen in > time > > just because of the wider support and adoption, but that's not worth > arguing > > about. Let's refine what we have and spend our time on construction and > > progress rather than peddy arguments over development preferences.
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> wrote:
> >> Oh my god ! Where are you going guys ?
> >> Just asked to know if someone thinked about some port. Never said PHP is > >> better than Rail or anything like that.
> >> I understand the project is too young to plan it. But, you cannot assume > >> that if people had the time to help with their own skill, they will also > >> have the time to learn new ones in order to acquire enought experience > to be > >> able to simply understand what is done. > >> Keeping high level skills take a lot of time that is hard to handle.
> >> Debate is close. > >> We will have to wait to see this running on our LAMP environment ;)
> >> -- > >> Edouard
> >> 2010/9/16 Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com>
> >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > its a +1 to Stick to Ruby
> >>> > apologize for the excessive exclamation
> >>> > immature port bad
> >>> It's "premature," though "immature" is not a bad characterization > >>> of the non-controversy some are attempting to inject.
> >>> > still must dampen Rails fanaticism
> >>> Cf. my earlier statement about strawman arguments.
> >>> > see to believe
> >>> Why don't you put some of this energy you seem to have into > >>> helping shape the software in its present incarnation, instead of > >>> adopting this cynical hipster online persona? You'll be helping in > >>> a genuine way, not building some kind of tenuous street cred. Dude.
> >>> > -strawman
> >>> I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your name.
> >>> Russell
> >>> > ________________________________ > >>> > From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> > >>> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > >>> > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM > >>> > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> >>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > >>> >> sorry-imho
> >>> > Nice salutation.
> >>> >> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is > unhealthy > >>> >> don't know anything about Ruby!!!
> >>> > You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a view, > >>> > and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill for > >>> some > >>> > applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this case. > >>> Please > >>> > exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
> >>> > One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the > >>> vehemence > >>> > of your opinion.
> >>> >> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel > very > >>> sad > >>> >> for the whole Team
> >>> > Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
> >>> >> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source initiatives
> >>> > No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the > effort > >>> > in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source > >>> > initiative."
> >>> >> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
> >>> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, it > >>> _could_ > >>> > mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who couldn't > >>> > be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" > >>> > prematurely.
> >>> > You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting > language, a > >>> > useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering discipline. > You > >>> > should embrace the opportunity.
> >>> >> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port is > >>> >> justified
> >>> > You need to define "worse than."
> >>> >> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & there > are > >>> few > >>> >> languages that will create less problems than there are facing now > >>> >> ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
> >>> > Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a bit, > I > >>> see.
> >>> >> chill,out,
> >>> > Who's not chill, dude?
> >>> >> bummer
> >>> > Russell
> >>> >> ________________________________ > >>> >> From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> > >>> >> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > >>> >> Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM > >>> >> Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> >>> >> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to > >>> >> another > >>> >> language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. > >>> Those > >>> >> who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know > >>> anything > >>> >> about Rails.
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM, John Favorite <john.favor...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Care to document on the Wiki?
>> On Sep 16, 2010 3:00 PM, "Clayton McIlrath" <clay.mcilr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I've got it running on LAMP and took less than 10 mins to setup. Even >> > though >> > I'm a PHP guy (by demand, not by choice), I do agree Rails is a great >> > way to >> > go.. porting is not needed if the Diaspora teams does a good job making >> > an >> > installer and document the hell out of it. A PHP port might happen in >> > time >> > just because of the wider support and adoption, but that's not worth >> > arguing >> > about. Let's refine what we have and spend our time on construction and >> > progress rather than peddy arguments over development preferences.
>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> wrote:
>> >> Oh my god ! Where are you going guys ?
>> >> Just asked to know if someone thinked about some port. Never said PHP >> >> is >> >> better than Rail or anything like that.
>> >> I understand the project is too young to plan it. But, you cannot >> >> assume >> >> that if people had the time to help with their own skill, they will >> >> also >> >> have the time to learn new ones in order to acquire enought experience >> >> to be >> >> able to simply understand what is done. >> >> Keeping high level skills take a lot of time that is hard to handle.
>> >> Debate is close. >> >> We will have to wait to see this running on our LAMP environment ;)
>> >> -- >> >> Edouard
>> >> 2010/9/16 Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> > its a +1 to Stick to Ruby
>> >>> > apologize for the excessive exclamation
>> >>> > immature port bad
>> >>> It's "premature," though "immature" is not a bad characterization >> >>> of the non-controversy some are attempting to inject.
>> >>> > still must dampen Rails fanaticism
>> >>> Cf. my earlier statement about strawman arguments.
>> >>> > see to believe
>> >>> Why don't you put some of this energy you seem to have into >> >>> helping shape the software in its present incarnation, instead of >> >>> adopting this cynical hipster online persona? You'll be helping in >> >>> a genuine way, not building some kind of tenuous street cred. Dude.
>> >>> > -strawman
>> >>> I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your name.
>> >>> Russell
>> >>> > ________________________________ >> >>> > From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> >> >>> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com >> >>> > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM >> >>> > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
>> >>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> sorry-imho
>> >>> > Nice salutation.
>> >>> >> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is >> >>> >> unhealthy >> >>> >> don't know anything about Ruby!!!
>> >>> > You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a >> >>> > view, >> >>> > and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill for >> >>> some >> >>> > applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this case. >> >>> Please >> >>> > exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
>> >>> > One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the >> >>> vehemence >> >>> > of your opinion.
>> >>> >> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel >> >>> >> very >> >>> sad >> >>> >> for the whole Team
>> >>> > Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
>> >>> >> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source initiatives
>> >>> > No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the >> >>> > effort >> >>> > in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source >> >>> > initiative."
>> >>> >> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
>> >>> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, it >> >>> _could_ >> >>> > mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who couldn't >> >>> > be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" >> >>> > prematurely.
>> >>> > You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting >> >>> > language, a >> >>> > useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering discipline. >> >>> > You >> >>> > should embrace the opportunity.
>> >>> >> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port is >> >>> >> justified
>> >>> > You need to define "worse than."
>> >>> >> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & there >> >>> >> are >> >>> few >> >>> >> languages that will create less problems than there are facing now >> >>> >> ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
>> >>> > Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a bit, >> >>> > I >> >>> see.
>> >>> >> chill,out,
>> >>> > Who's not chill, dude?
>> >>> >> bummer
>> >>> > Russell
>> >>> >> ________________________________ >> >>> >> From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> >> >>> >> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com >> >>> >> Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM >> >>> >> Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
>> >>> >> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora to >> >>> >> another >> >>> >> language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth enduring. >> >>> Those >> >>> >> who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know >> >>> anything >> >>> >> about Rails.
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM, John Favorite <john.favor...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> >> Care to document on the Wiki?
> >> On Sep 16, 2010 3:00 PM, "Clayton McIlrath" <clay.mcilr...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I've got it running on LAMP and took less than 10 mins to setup. Even > >> > though > >> > I'm a PHP guy (by demand, not by choice), I do agree Rails is a great > >> > way to > >> > go.. porting is not needed if the Diaspora teams does a good job > making > >> > an > >> > installer and document the hell out of it. A PHP port might happen in > >> > time > >> > just because of the wider support and adoption, but that's not worth > >> > arguing > >> > about. Let's refine what we have and spend our time on construction > and > >> > progress rather than peddy arguments over development preferences.
> >> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> > wrote:
> >> >> Oh my god ! Where are you going guys ?
> >> >> Just asked to know if someone thinked about some port. Never said PHP > >> >> is > >> >> better than Rail or anything like that.
> >> >> I understand the project is too young to plan it. But, you cannot > >> >> assume > >> >> that if people had the time to help with their own skill, they will > >> >> also > >> >> have the time to learn new ones in order to acquire enought > experience > >> >> to be > >> >> able to simply understand what is done. > >> >> Keeping high level skills take a lot of time that is hard to handle.
> >> >> Debate is close. > >> >> We will have to wait to see this running on our LAMP environment ;)
> >> >> -- > >> >> Edouard
> >> >> 2010/9/16 Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com>
> >> >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> >>> > its a +1 to Stick to Ruby
> >> >>> > apologize for the excessive exclamation
> >> >>> > immature port bad
> >> >>> It's "premature," though "immature" is not a bad characterization > >> >>> of the non-controversy some are attempting to inject.
> >> >>> > still must dampen Rails fanaticism
> >> >>> Cf. my earlier statement about strawman arguments.
> >> >>> > see to believe
> >> >>> Why don't you put some of this energy you seem to have into > >> >>> helping shape the software in its present incarnation, instead of > >> >>> adopting this cynical hipster online persona? You'll be helping in > >> >>> a genuine way, not building some kind of tenuous street cred. Dude.
> >> >>> > -strawman
> >> >>> I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your name.
> >> >>> Russell
> >> >>> > ________________________________ > >> >>> > From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> > >> >>> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > >> >>> > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM > >> >>> > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> >> >>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> > >> >>> > wrote: > >> >>> >> sorry-imho
> >> >>> > Nice salutation.
> >> >>> >> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is > >> >>> >> unhealthy > >> >>> >> don't know anything about Ruby!!!
> >> >>> > You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a > >> >>> > view, > >> >>> > and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill > for > >> >>> some > >> >>> > applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this > case. > >> >>> Please > >> >>> > exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
> >> >>> > One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the > >> >>> vehemence > >> >>> > of your opinion.
> >> >>> >> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel > >> >>> >> very > >> >>> sad > >> >>> >> for the whole Team
> >> >>> > Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
> >> >>> >> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source > initiatives
> >> >>> > No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the > >> >>> > effort > >> >>> > in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source > >> >>> > initiative."
> >> >>> >> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
> >> >>> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, > it > >> >>> _could_ > >> >>> > mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who couldn't > >> >>> > be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" > >> >>> > prematurely.
> >> >>> > You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting > >> >>> > language, a > >> >>> > useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering > discipline. > >> >>> > You > >> >>> > should embrace the opportunity.
> >> >>> >> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port > is > >> >>> >> justified
> >> >>> > You need to define "worse than."
> >> >>> >> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & > there > >> >>> >> are > >> >>> few > >> >>> >> languages that will create less problems than there are facing > now > >> >>> >> ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
> >> >>> > Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a > bit, > >> >>> > I > >> >>> see.
> >> >>> >> chill,out,
> >> >>> > Who's not chill, dude?
> >> >>> >> bummer
> >> >>> > Russell
> >> >>> >> ________________________________ > >> >>> >> From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> > >> >>> >> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > >> >>> >> Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM > >> >>> >> Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> >> >>> >> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora > to > >> >>> >> another > >> >>> >> language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth > enduring. > >> >>> Those > >> >>> >> who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't know > >> >>> anything > >> >>> >> about Rails.
>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM, John Favorite <john.favor...@gmail.com> >> > wrote:
>> >> Care to document on the Wiki?
>> >> On Sep 16, 2010 3:00 PM, "Clayton McIlrath" <clay.mcilr...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I've got it running on LAMP and took less than 10 mins to setup. Even >> >> > though >> >> > I'm a PHP guy (by demand, not by choice), I do agree Rails is a great >> >> > way to >> >> > go.. porting is not needed if the Diaspora teams does a good job >> >> > making >> >> > an >> >> > installer and document the hell out of it. A PHP port might happen in >> >> > time >> >> > just because of the wider support and adoption, but that's not worth >> >> > arguing >> >> > about. Let's refine what we have and spend our time on construction >> >> > and >> >> > progress rather than peddy arguments over development preferences.
>> >> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Oh my god ! Where are you going guys ?
>> >> >> Just asked to know if someone thinked about some port. Never said >> >> >> PHP >> >> >> is >> >> >> better than Rail or anything like that.
>> >> >> I understand the project is too young to plan it. But, you cannot >> >> >> assume >> >> >> that if people had the time to help with their own skill, they will >> >> >> also >> >> >> have the time to learn new ones in order to acquire enought >> >> >> experience >> >> >> to be >> >> >> able to simply understand what is done. >> >> >> Keeping high level skills take a lot of time that is hard to handle.
>> >> >> Debate is close. >> >> >> We will have to wait to see this running on our LAMP environment ;)
>> >> >> -- >> >> >> Edouard
>> >> >> 2010/9/16 Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> > its a +1 to Stick to Ruby
>> >> >>> > apologize for the excessive exclamation
>> >> >>> > immature port bad
>> >> >>> It's "premature," though "immature" is not a bad characterization >> >> >>> of the non-controversy some are attempting to inject.
>> >> >>> > still must dampen Rails fanaticism
>> >> >>> Cf. my earlier statement about strawman arguments.
>> >> >>> > see to believe
>> >> >>> Why don't you put some of this energy you seem to have into >> >> >>> helping shape the software in its present incarnation, instead of >> >> >>> adopting this cynical hipster online persona? You'll be helping in >> >> >>> a genuine way, not building some kind of tenuous street cred. Dude.
>> >> >>> > -strawman
>> >> >>> I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your name.
>> >> >>> Russell
>> >> >>> > ________________________________ >> >> >>> > From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com >> >> >>> > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
>> >> >>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> >> >> >>> > wrote: >> >> >>> >> sorry-imho
>> >> >>> > Nice salutation.
>> >> >>> >> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is >> >> >>> >> unhealthy >> >> >>> >> don't know anything about Ruby!!!
>> >> >>> > You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a >> >> >>> > view, >> >> >>> > and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is overkill >> >> >>> > for >> >> >>> some >> >> >>> > applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this >> >> >>> > case. >> >> >>> Please >> >> >>> > exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
>> >> >>> > One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate the >> >> >>> vehemence >> >> >>> > of your opinion.
>> >> >>> >> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I feel >> >> >>> >> very >> >> >>> sad >> >> >>> >> for the whole Team
>> >> >>> > Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
>> >> >>> >> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source >> >> >>> >> initiatives
>> >> >>> > No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting the >> >> >>> > effort >> >> >>> > in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open source >> >> >>> > initiative."
>> >> >>> >> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth porting
>> >> >>> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean that, >> >> >>> > it >> >> >>> _could_ >> >> >>> > mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who >> >> >>> > couldn't >> >> >>> > be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" >> >> >>> > prematurely.
>> >> >>> > You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting >> >> >>> > language, a >> >> >>> > useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering >> >> >>> > discipline. >> >> >>> > You >> >> >>> > should embrace the opportunity.
>> >> >>> >> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the port >> >> >>> >> is >> >> >>> >> justified
>> >> >>> > You need to define "worse than."
>> >> >>> >> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & >> >> >>> >> there >> >> >>> >> are >> >> >>> few >> >> >>> >> languages that will create less problems than there are facing >> >> >>> >> now >> >> >>> >> ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
>> >> >>> > Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a >> >> >>> > bit, >> >> >>> > I >> >> >>> see.
>> >> >>> >> chill,out,
>> >> >>> > Who's not chill, dude?
>> >> >>> >> bummer
>> >> >>> > Russell
>> >> >>> >> ________________________________ >> >> >>> >> From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> >> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com >> >> >>> >> Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM >> >> >>> >> Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
>> >> >>> >> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting Diaspora >> >> >>> >> to >> >> >>> >> another >> >> >>> >> language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth >> >> >>> >> enduring. >> >> >>> Those >> >> >>> >> who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't >> >> >>> >> know >> >> >>> anything >> >> >>> >> about Rails.
> but when I've done the apache restart I simply cannot find diaspora > from the browser, it's as if its not running > any thoughts on what i'm doing wrong?
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 6:21 AM, John Favorite <john.favor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Awesome!
> > I see you document root is what I would expect under apache: > > /var/www/diaspora/public
> > I am still running out of the /home/diaspora/rubygems-1.3.7/diaspora dir. > > You just moved over the public folder correct?
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Eric Alan Solo <sambarino1...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> Awesome Clayton, that's exactly what I was looking for XD
> >> >> wrote: > >> >> > I've got it running on LAMP and took less than 10 mins to setup. > Even > >> >> > though > >> >> > I'm a PHP guy (by demand, not by choice), I do agree Rails is a > great > >> >> > way to > >> >> > go.. porting is not needed if the Diaspora teams does a good job > >> >> > making > >> >> > an > >> >> > installer and document the hell out of it. A PHP port might happen > in > >> >> > time > >> >> > just because of the wider support and adoption, but that's not > worth > >> >> > arguing > >> >> > about. Let's refine what we have and spend our time on construction > >> >> > and > >> >> > progress rather than peddy arguments over development preferences.
> >> >> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Edouard Cunibil <ad...@duael.fr> > >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Oh my god ! Where are you going guys ?
> >> >> >> Just asked to know if someone thinked about some port. Never said > >> >> >> PHP > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> better than Rail or anything like that.
> >> >> >> I understand the project is too young to plan it. But, you cannot > >> >> >> assume > >> >> >> that if people had the time to help with their own skill, they > will > >> >> >> also > >> >> >> have the time to learn new ones in order to acquire enought > >> >> >> experience > >> >> >> to be > >> >> >> able to simply understand what is done. > >> >> >> Keeping high level skills take a lot of time that is hard to > handle.
> >> >> >> Debate is close. > >> >> >> We will have to wait to see this running on our LAMP environment > ;)
> >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> Edouard
> >> >> >> 2010/9/16 Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >>> > its a +1 to Stick to Ruby
> >> >> >>> > apologize for the excessive exclamation
> >> >> >>> > immature port bad
> >> >> >>> It's "premature," though "immature" is not a bad characterization > >> >> >>> of the non-controversy some are attempting to inject.
> >> >> >>> > still must dampen Rails fanaticism
> >> >> >>> Cf. my earlier statement about strawman arguments.
> >> >> >>> > see to believe
> >> >> >>> Why don't you put some of this energy you seem to have into > >> >> >>> helping shape the software in its present incarnation, instead of > >> >> >>> adopting this cynical hipster online persona? You'll be helping > in > >> >> >>> a genuine way, not building some kind of tenuous street cred. > Dude.
> >> >> >>> > -strawman
> >> >> >>> I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your > name.
> >> >> >>> Russell
> >> >> >>> > ________________________________ > >> >> >>> > From: Russell Whitaker <russell.whita...@gmail.com> > >> >> >>> > To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > >> >> >>> > Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:48:33 PM > >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> >> >> >>> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, wenjie han <wj...@yahoo.com> > >> >> >>> > wrote: > >> >> >>> >> sorry-imho
> >> >> >>> > Nice salutation.
> >> >> >>> >> I think those who think slightest criticism against Rails is > >> >> >>> >> unhealthy > >> >> >>> >> don't know anything about Ruby!!!
> >> >> >>> > You're setting up a strawman argument. No one here holds such a > >> >> >>> > view, > >> >> >>> > and I certainly don't. I would even argue that Rails is > overkill > >> >> >>> > for > >> >> >>> some > >> >> >>> > applications, and Sinatra is a better choice. But not in this > >> >> >>> > case. > >> >> >>> Please > >> >> >>> > exercise a bit more care in characterizing your disagreements.
> >> >> >>> > One exclamation point, by the way, is sufficient to indicate > the > >> >> >>> vehemence > >> >> >>> > of your opinion.
> >> >> >>> >> if Diaspora is about furthering the Rails movement - then I > feel > >> >> >>> >> very > >> >> >>> sad > >> >> >>> >> for the whole Team
> >> >> >>> > Who said that? No one. Not I, certainly.
> >> >> >>> >> A ports are inevitable outcomes of any good open source > >> >> >>> >> initiatives
> >> >> >>> > No, they're not. They are "sometimes" outcomes. And splitting > the > >> >> >>> > effort > >> >> >>> > in the very beginning is not an attribute of a "good open > source > >> >> >>> > initiative."
> >> >> >>> >> B if this gets ported - - - means Diaspora is/was worth > porting
> >> >> >>> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc: no, it doesn't necessarily mean > that, > >> >> >>> > it > >> >> >>> _could_ > >> >> >>> > mean that a small number of irascible PHP programmers who > >> >> >>> > couldn't > >> >> >>> > be bothered to learn the core dev framework decided to "port" > >> >> >>> > prematurely.
> >> >> >>> > You guys have a sterling opportunity to learn an interesting > >> >> >>> > language, a > >> >> >>> > useful framework, and an invaluable software engineering > >> >> >>> > discipline. > >> >> >>> > You > >> >> >>> > should embrace the opportunity.
> >> >> >>> >> C if this gets ported and is worse than its port - - - the > port > >> >> >>> >> is > >> >> >>> >> justified
> >> >> >>> > You need to define "worse than."
> >> >> >>> >> +1 : only because i agree its a debacle not worth enduring & > >> >> >>> >> there > >> >> >>> >> are > >> >> >>> few > >> >> >>> >> languages that will create less problems than there are facing > >> >> >>> >> now > >> >> >>> >> ... AND ITS EARLY DAYS...ONLY DAY 1...
> >> >> >>> > Um, OK, it seems you actually agree, but enjoy stirring it up a > >> >> >>> > bit, > >> >> >>> > I > >> >> >>> see.
> >> >> >>> >> chill,out,
> >> >> >>> > Who's not chill, dude?
> >> >> >>> >> bummer
> >> >> >>> > Russell
> >> >> >>> >> ________________________________ > >> >> >>> >> From: Alex Cline <alex.cl...@gmail.com> > >> >> >>> >> To: diaspora-dev@googlegroups.com > >> >> >>> >> Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 10:46:38 PM > >> >> >>> >> Subject: Re: Stick to Ruby/Rails please - Re: Not RoR port
> >> >> >>> >> Thank you for writing this. I wholly agree that porting > Diaspora > >> >> >>> >> to > >> >> >>> >> another > >> >> >>> >> language would be a horrible idea and a debacle not worth > >> >> >>> >> enduring. > >> >> >>> Those > >> >> >>> >> who think that Rails is a poor framework to develop in don't > >> >> >>> >> know > >> >> >>> anything > >> >> >>> >> about Rails.
