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 <coop...@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...)
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
> 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"
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
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.
Who's not chill, dude?
> From: Alex Cline <alex....@gmail.com>
> To: diaspo...@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.
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.
I'm guessing it's too "straight" to simply sign off with your name.
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? ;-)
Dept. of Computer Science,
University of Copenhagen
Care to document on the Wiki?
On Sep 16, 2010 3:00 PM, "Clayton McIlrath" <clay.m...@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.
> *Clayton McIlrath*
> Chosen - Founder & Developer
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Clayton McIlrath
I am still running out of the
/home/diaspora/rubygems-1.3.7/diaspora dir.You just moved over the public folder correct?
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 4:22 PM, Clayton McIlrath