The software industry runs in cycles of comparisons. Features are matched point by point. Entire API groups are developed not only to fill a need but to answer the question does your language have X. This raises the question:
Does Java need an answer to Rails?
There are two trends playing themselves out in response to this question. First there is the concept of simply running the Ruby language and in turn Rails under the JVM. One could argue with this route no other answer is needed. JRuby is fast approaching the capability to run over 95% of Rails tests. The alternative to this approach is recreating the secret ingredients that makes Rails a success in a rival web application framework for Java. Among the items proposed:
Does Java need an answer to Rails?
There are two trends playing themselves out in response to this question. First there is the concept of simply running the Ruby language and in turn Rails under the JVM. One could argue with this route no other answer is needed. JRuby is fast approaching the capability to run over 95% of Rails tests. The alternative to this approach is recreating the secret ingredients that makes Rails a success in a rival web application framework for Java. Among the items proposed:
- Ruby the Language
- It is "opinionated software". (Countered)
- Simplicity
- Convention Over Configuration
- Community
Bloggers have been discussing the other concept of creating comparable frameworks in Java that catch the secret combination. Options include Seam, Trails, Sails, and Grails.
