I give talks on Rails and Ruby to Java developers on average once every two weeks. I’ve probably spoken to thousands of folks over the last year. And I don’t think I’ve ever had a talk that didn’t end with someone asking “that’s all very nice, but is Rails ready to be used in my company? Can I stop writing Java and start writing Ruby?”
As with most good questions, there’s no one simple answer. Here’s what I tell people.
First, Ask the Right Question
One of the main selling points for Java in the late 90’s was the idea of having a language, runtime, and library set that could be used everywhere. Use Java to code your cell phone, and use Java to code your largest enterprise application. To some extent that thinking has insinuated itself into the mind sets of many developers—they are looking for one solution, one framework, and one language to solve all their problems.
That’s silly. Some situations need one tool, other situations another tool. Using the full might of a J2EE stack to write a small stand-alone application is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But I keep hearing the sound of nuts being pulverized as developers seem to think that using anything other than J2EE is somehow unprofessional.
At the same time, there are situations that call for the shock and awe that is J2EE. Some applications need to make use of facilities rolled into the stack, and it would be crazy to reinvent the wheel.
So when people ask “should I be using Rails instead of Java?”, the answer has to be “not exclusively: you’re likely to want to use Rails as well as Java.” Why? Because I’m a firm believer in having a bag of tools at your disposal, tools that you know how and—most importantly—when to use. When Rails is appropriate, you’re going to be hard pressed to find a more productive environment.
And, even if Rails is the clear winner for a particular application, developers face a second challenge. They have to convince their companies to let them use it.
So the real questions are “when is Rails appropriate?”, and “how can I introduce it where I work?”
Let’s start by looking at some of the hurdles Rails has to clear to make it an appropriate choice where you work.
Next, Make Sure It’s Possible
When shouldn’t you use Rails?
If you need to handle transactions across multiple databases. Rails/Ruby doesn’t have two phase commit (yet).
If you have really strange database schemas. ActiveRecord beats Hibernate when the schemas are fairly well structured. Hibernate wins when you have to map the schema-from-hell before using it inside your application.
If you’re adding small chunks of functionality to an existing, large application. OK, this is contentious. If I was reading this, I’d probably fire up my mail client and complain that this is exactly when you should use Rails. Integrate to the monster using web services, and add new functionality in something more malleable, such as Rails.
Except… most monstrously large applications I’ve come across got there over time. They’re messy, hard to work with, and tightly coupled. If you wanted to expose parts of them via web services, you’d first have to restructure them to make those parts callable from the outside, and that probably isn’t worth the effort (if it’s possible at all).
The developers don’t want to. If the rest of the developers don’t want to use Rails, then forcing them to help you create a pilot project is a simple recipe for embarrassment. Pull, don’t push, when it comes to change.
Then, Make it Realistic
Companies are all different, and there’s no one road to Rails adoption.
In some environments, there may be no resistance to using Rails. I’ve even heard of some places where the managers are working to persuade the development staff to give Rails a try. Typically, it’s the small and medium size businesses that have this kind of flexibility. Companies such as Odeo and VitalSourceembraced Rails as a key component of their business plan.
Other companies, including most large ones, have a more conservative approach when adopting new technologies. So how can a developer who’s convinced that Rails would benefit their company get it into production?
In general, I suggest an incremental approach. Start with small, developer-focused applications. For example, a new table may have been added to the database. Developers need to be able to maintain test data in it, so they can continue to write parts of the larger (Java) application. Whip up a quick Rails application in 20 minutes and leave it running on a Webrick server somewhere. Folks will notice how easy it seemed to be.
Maybe at some point the development group might need a web application for their own use (change request trqcking, for example). Suggest writing it in Rails. Mention that not only will it take less time (and hence cost less in terms of overhead dollars), but it will also allow the group to get some experience with the technology. This is where you get to show off. First deliver a solid solution, then add stuff such as Ajax support to show them how things might be (if only they used Rails in all their applications…).
Then the time might come to roll out an inward-facing corporate application. If the development team are now comfortable with the technology, propose a Rails application. Now you’ll get experience running Rails in a production environment.
Finally, once everyone is comfortable, think about rolling out an externally-facing Rails application.
Easing the Transition
Here are three suggestions for making the transition to Rails applications less extreme:
Start using Rails Conventions in Your Java Applications. Maybe you aren’t in a position to make the switch now. Even so, think about using some of the Rails conventions when you do things such as add new tables to your Java applications. Using the Rails naming schemes won’t make any difference to Hibernate, and you’ll be in a stronger position to write Rails applications against that schema. Even though the external application is still J2EE, you can write internal, ancillary applications in Rails. And if the schema is Rails friendly, the effort will be less.
Do parallel developments. The jury is still out on the productivity increases that come from using Rails, but I see some very credible people talking about numbers in the 5-15x range. So if Rails really does let you write applications in 10-20% of the time you’d otherwise take, why not do a Rails development in parallel with the real one? If the main project is slated to take 5 months using J2EE, and after a month you have a working Rails version, your company gets to make a decision.
They can use the Rails version, having invested 2 months of effort (one month for Rails, one month for the parallel Java team). This is a net saving of 3 months over the original 5 month estimate.
They can choose not to use the Rails version. In this case they’ve spent an extra month, and learned something valuable. Is that extra month significant? Probably not—it seems to me that any project that comes in within 20% of its estimate is a raging (and unusual) success, so this extra time just gets swallowed by the general budget slop that surrounds all software development.
Make sure you know what you’re doing before leaping into an ambitious project. As the cliché says, you only get one chance to make a first impression. If you want to show that Rails is viable in your company, then you need to make sure that all the folks doing the work on your first visible Rails project know what they’re doing. Think hard about the deployment and maintenance issues before committing. Choose something simple, and implement it well.
What do you think? Is all this realistic? Have you already introduced Rails to your company? How’d it go?Let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment