Rails Tutorial questions
Michael Hartl
project to make a high-quality and up-to-date introductory tutorial
book for Rails---basically, a good answer to the question, "Where
should I start if I want to learn Rails?"
In preparation for the main project, I've recently spent some time
developing a system to make nice PDF and HTML books at the same time
(see, e.g., the sample document at
http://www.railstutorial.org/sample), and now it's time to start
writing the actual book. I want to design the tutorial so that (a)
newbies find it interesting and comprehensible and (b) Rails experts
are enthusiastic about recommending it. Since subscribers to this list
are likely to be Rails experts, you are in a position to help me
achieve goal (b). In particular, I have two key questions about the
book's content:
1. Which testing framework should I use? Given my knowledge
(experience with Test::Unit and RSpec, among others) and my audience
(beginners), the choice boils down to:
(a) Test::Unit
Pros: comes bundled with Rails, is "good enough"
Cons: needs either fixtures (fragile) or something like Mocha
(external dependency); many, perhaps most, advanced Rails developers
eventually move on to something else
(b) RSpec
Pros: nicely designed, I know it well (it's my current primary test framework)
Cons: less standard than Test::Unit, adds an external dependency
2. The tutorial will teach Rails by developing a substantial sample
application, and the leading candidate for the sample app is status
updates with asymmetric following---i.e., a tiny Twitter clone.
Pros: A nice size (not too big, not too small*) with an interesting
data model; Twitter is hot right now, and it's written in Rails to
boot
Cons: Might seem too trendy, could be dated in a year or two
*Don't worry that it might be too small; making it bigger is easy. Add
support for @reply threads, direct messaging, RSS feeds, and
search---bam! that's 2-3 extra chapters right there.
So, what do you think? Test::Unit or RSpec? A tiny Twitter sample app,
or something else? Which choices would make for a tutorial you
personally would recommend? Feel free to email general suggestions;
for quick feedback, I've set up a survey form here:
http://mhartl.wufoo.com/forms/rails-tutorial-survey/
Thanks in advance,
Michael
--
Michael Hartl
http://railstutorial.org/
http://blog.mhartl.com/
Michael Kimsal
Michael Kimsal
http://jsmag.com - for javascript developers
http://groovymag.com - for groovy developers
919.827.4724
Michael Hartl
> down, slow, or otherwise unavailable (imagine someone wanting to learn with
> your tutorial while travelling without net access for parts of the trip).
Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps I wasn't clear: the idea is to
*write* a small, stripped-down version of Twitter as a way to teach
Rails, not to make a Twitter client or integrate with the real Twitter
in any way. Such an application might not be particularly
useful---it's hard to imagine why you'd want to launch your own
version of Twitter---but it would be instructive. And that is, after
all, the main point of a tutorial.
Michael
Michael Kimsal
Gavin
Thinking back to when I was learning Rails, I really didn't have any
sort of Ruby grounding at all.
As a result, I knew how to use Models and Controllers etc. long before
I fully realised that these were just examples of Ruby classes.
For the same reason that you should learn French before trying to
write French poetry, your readers should learn Ruby before they learn
to write in Rails. I'd love to see an intro to Rails book that did
this!
In my opinion, a Twitter copy would be fine. Best to use a format that
your users are really comfortable with. That way the focus is on
learning how Ruby and Rails work and not on learning how a particular
website works.
As far as testing goes... interesting dilemma.
On one side, by introducing Rspec, you could introduce your readers to
gems. Let them know that Ruby offers a vast collection of libraries
that you can pick and choose depending on your needs. I find rspec
better for BDD too. The "should create a new user" and "should not add
a comment" are easier to understand and follow than "test creating
users" or "test adding comments" so perhaps your readers will find
that a more palatable introduction to testing?
On the other side, you're introducing newbs to Rails. So perhaps going
along with the defaults may be less intimidating. To address the issue
of fixtures, you could use FactoryGirl instead. That way you're still
sticking to Test::Unit, you can introduce the concept of gems and your
avoiding fixtures.
If your goal is to teach someone to work with Rails then you want to
equip them with the best tools for the job. In my opinion that's
Rspec.
I'd be interested in seeing the progress of your book.
Be sure to send out some Beta invites.
Gavin
http://handyrailstips.com
Brian
but you never really get it enough to be good at Rails until you start
learning Ruby. Then it really starts to click and your skills begin to
increase more rapidly. I would recommend teaching Ruby along the way
with rails. Not delaying rails until after ruby, nor ruby after rails,
but teaching rails and embedding ruby structures, backgrounds, and
core language along the way.
Brian Burridge
peepnote.com, wombeat.com, mileyworld.com
Michael Hartl
up-front section on Ruby---people reading a Rails tutorial usually
want to learn Rails, not Ruby per se, and having a 50-75 page Ruby
intro is a big pill to swallow. One of my mantras when writing
"RailsSpace" was "don't stray too far from the browser"; in other
words, we're making web apps here, not writing general Ruby programs.
On the other hand, you've convinced me that really cranking up the
dial on the Ruby content is a good idea, both as a way to demystify
some of the Rails magic and to empower the reader by conveying a
deeper understanding of the underlying language.
Thanks!
Michael
Michael Hartl
http://michaelhartl.com/
http://blog.mhartl.com/
Gavin Morrice
Also, anybody fancy co-writing an intro to Ruby book for people
starting Rails. As a sort of companion for the various Rails books
that are out there?
Just an idea.
Gavin