
Rails-like Quickly tools brings rapid development to Ubuntu - Davertron
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/08/quickly-new-rails-like-rapid-development-tools-for-ubuntu.ars
======
FooBarWidget
Finally, it's about time. I've been working with Rails for several years now
and it's an absolute joy to use. It made me wonder whether it's possible to
make something similar for desktop apps.

It's good that this is built in Python. I used to use C to write desktop apps,
but developing in C is very, very slow. Using Python not only allows quick
development, but it also allows you make "binary" packages that run on all
Linux variants irregardless of ABI differences.

However, Quickly is doing something wrong compared to Rails: marketing and
polish. The Quickly website is just a Launchpad page, and their documentation
is just a wiki. They should have a proper website with documentation in an
easy-to-read format that doesn't feel messy, maybe a few screencasts too. The
current "website" looks to amateurish and doesn't exactly invite me to use it.

~~~
fhars
And they should be searchable on the web. Somehow I can't stop thinking that
this announcement is a misguided followup to the "Think twice before naming
your new programming language" article posted a few day ago
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=779108>

~~~
natrius
Even with namespace collisions, it's usually easy enough to find software if
you search for "$NAME project". The first result for "quickly project" is
related to quickly, though inadvertently. In a week or two, the Launchpad page
will probably be the first result.

~~~
fhars
That will find the project home page. Now how do I find blogs discussing the
project? If every web page mentioning the project would always link to the
canonical url of the project page, I could search for these links, acting as
if the real project name were <https://launchpad.net/quickly>, but that
doesn't feel natural. And it requires the collaboration of every single author
writing about quickly.

~~~
natrius
Hm. Good point.

------
pchickey
Is the description 'Rails-like' used accurately here? Based on this article,
it sounds like Quickly generates boilerplate code and a makefile. Rails is
playing on a much higher level, allowing you to describe how the actual
interface and data behaves.

~~~
sorbits
It is rather misleading IMO even though it is from the article.

It is a template expansion system that also setups SCM for the “expanded”
project templates — presently it sounds like there is only the template for
Ubuntu projects, but that other templates could be created.

------
Randai
This actually sounds really neat. I mean some people mind find it not to their
taste and all of that, but I think its a step in the right direction for
development on Linux(Ubuntu in this case) if similar projects pop up. Are
there many similar projects that aim at a quick deployment scenarios?

~~~
Tichy
While it works well enough for Rails and maybe now also Ubuntu, in general I
am wary of generators. Seems to me if there is a need for a generator, it
could be a sign that the framework is unnecessarily complex. Since the
required configurations and whatnot can apparently be generated automatically,
why expose them to the user at all?

~~~
theBobMcCormick
I don't know about Quickly or Glade, but Rails doesn't really use generators
in the way you're thinking of. What Rails calls generators are more like the
new project wizards or new class wizards,etc. most IDE's like Eclipse, etc.
They create a couple of files with the skeletal outline of the required
structure, etc.

It's not like some of the "enterprise" java tools that generate thousands of
lines of incomprehensible code.

~~~
Tichy
I admit my anti-generator attitude came from experiences with Java. But even
with Rails I have problems to remember all the parameters for the generators.
(OK, an IDE could help - but if I need an IDE to be able to cope, I am
treading close to Java territory).

As I said, it seems to work well enough for Rails, but I am also not 100% in
love with it. It worked especially well for the initial "write a web app in 5
minutes with Rails" hype, but seems less useful in practice.

~~~
FooBarWidget
In practice people don't use scaffolding. It's good generating an initial
skeleton but you're generally recommended to only use that as a starting point
for implementing your own interface.

No, what makes Rails so great is not the scaffolding or the generators. It's
the philosophy of Don't Repeat Yourself and having a smooth learning curve,
and how everything in it reflects that philosophy.

