<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_07_1956208</id>
	<title>Restructured Ruby on Rails 3.0 Hits Beta</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265539800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Curlsman informs us that the <a href="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Ruby-on-Rails-30-Beta-Released-461753/">first beta of Ruby on Rails 3.0</a> has been released (<a href="http://guides.rails.info/3\_0\_release\_notes.html">release notes</a> here). Rails founder <a href="http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2010/2/5/rails-3-0-beta-release">David Heinemeier Hansson blogged</a> that RoR 3.0 "feels lighter, more agile, and easier to understand." This release is the first the Merb team has participated in. Merb is a model-view-controller framework written in Ruby, and they joined the RoR development effort over a year ago. Reader Curlsman asks, "So, is version 3 of RoR going to be a big deal, more of the same (good or bad), or just churning technology?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Curlsman informs us that the first beta of Ruby on Rails 3.0 has been released ( release notes here ) .
Rails founder David Heinemeier Hansson blogged that RoR 3.0 " feels lighter , more agile , and easier to understand .
" This release is the first the Merb team has participated in .
Merb is a model-view-controller framework written in Ruby , and they joined the RoR development effort over a year ago .
Reader Curlsman asks , " So , is version 3 of RoR going to be a big deal , more of the same ( good or bad ) , or just churning technology ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curlsman informs us that the first beta of Ruby on Rails 3.0 has been released (release notes here).
Rails founder David Heinemeier Hansson blogged that RoR 3.0 "feels lighter, more agile, and easier to understand.
" This release is the first the Merb team has participated in.
Merb is a model-view-controller framework written in Ruby, and they joined the RoR development effort over a year ago.
Reader Curlsman asks, "So, is version 3 of RoR going to be a big deal, more of the same (good or bad), or just churning technology?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056026</id>
	<title>Cynicism = good sign</title>
	<author>dino213b</author>
	<datestamp>1265545440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad first responses are so negative; now I don't have to bother trying ROR out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad first responses are so negative ; now I do n't have to bother trying ROR out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad first responses are so negative; now I don't have to bother trying ROR out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055780</id>
	<title>I think everyone would agree here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265543760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, is version 3 of RoR going to be a big deal, more of the same (good or bad), or just churning technology?</p></div><p>How about, we don't care? Back in the day, Ruby on Rails promised that it will "kill developers" and CEO-s will be coding the sites themselves in Rails, the hype was THIS big. "Programmers obsolete??".</p><p>Soon after it turned out "real programmers" can't scale a Rails app to save their job (Twitter).</p><p>Your moment of marketing glory is over. Have the decency to go in a corner and die.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is version 3 of RoR going to be a big deal , more of the same ( good or bad ) , or just churning technology ? How about , we do n't care ?
Back in the day , Ruby on Rails promised that it will " kill developers " and CEO-s will be coding the sites themselves in Rails , the hype was THIS big .
" Programmers obsolete ? ?
" .Soon after it turned out " real programmers " ca n't scale a Rails app to save their job ( Twitter ) .Your moment of marketing glory is over .
Have the decency to go in a corner and die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is version 3 of RoR going to be a big deal, more of the same (good or bad), or just churning technology?How about, we don't care?
Back in the day, Ruby on Rails promised that it will "kill developers" and CEO-s will be coding the sites themselves in Rails, the hype was THIS big.
"Programmers obsolete??
".Soon after it turned out "real programmers" can't scale a Rails app to save their job (Twitter).Your moment of marketing glory is over.
Have the decency to go in a corner and die.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265560800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it may not be your preference, applications written in Ruby are supposed to be written in such a way that they are self documenting. Contrary to other languages, the expressiveness of Ruby allows the developer to write code that means as much, if not more, than formal documentation.</p><p>If you need the documentation you are looking for in a Rails app, it was written poorly, or, dare I say incorrectly. So yes, you are right, you're not going to find the documentation you might find in other languages and frameworks. But it just isn't necessary most of the time if the app is written well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it may not be your preference , applications written in Ruby are supposed to be written in such a way that they are self documenting .
Contrary to other languages , the expressiveness of Ruby allows the developer to write code that means as much , if not more , than formal documentation.If you need the documentation you are looking for in a Rails app , it was written poorly , or , dare I say incorrectly .
So yes , you are right , you 're not going to find the documentation you might find in other languages and frameworks .
But it just is n't necessary most of the time if the app is written well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it may not be your preference, applications written in Ruby are supposed to be written in such a way that they are self documenting.
Contrary to other languages, the expressiveness of Ruby allows the developer to write code that means as much, if not more, than formal documentation.If you need the documentation you are looking for in a Rails app, it was written poorly, or, dare I say incorrectly.
So yes, you are right, you're not going to find the documentation you might find in other languages and frameworks.
But it just isn't necessary most of the time if the app is written well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265547120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ruby and/or Rails sucks because:<br>8. None of the local web hosting services offer it except in their most expensive packages, all we get for the low-cost packages is XSSI, PHP and Perl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ruby and/or Rails sucks because : 8 .
None of the local web hosting services offer it except in their most expensive packages , all we get for the low-cost packages is XSSI , PHP and Perl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ruby and/or Rails sucks because:8.
None of the local web hosting services offer it except in their most expensive packages, all we get for the low-cost packages is XSSI, PHP and Perl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056884</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265553840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Testing. Craftmanship. Quality. This is more cutural than technical.</p></div></blockquote><p>Funny, my experience of the Rails community is that it attracts a lot of crackpots who don't believe in documentation--not even API documentation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Testing .
Craftmanship. Quality .
This is more cutural than technical.Funny , my experience of the Rails community is that it attracts a lot of crackpots who do n't believe in documentation--not even API documentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Testing.
Craftmanship. Quality.
This is more cutural than technical.Funny, my experience of the Rails community is that it attracts a lot of crackpots who don't believe in documentation--not even API documentation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056010</id>
	<title>Mod submitter -1 Troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF kind of troll-ass summary is this? It's be like seeing a Microsoft announcement like this:</p><p>Office 2010 is almost out; is it gayer than nine guys blowing eight guys, or just a total piece of crap?</p><p>BTW: a preemptive STFU to the scaling trolls. Take your whinge back to 2005, where somebody might give a crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF kind of troll-ass summary is this ?
It 's be like seeing a Microsoft announcement like this : Office 2010 is almost out ; is it gayer than nine guys blowing eight guys , or just a total piece of crap ? BTW : a preemptive STFU to the scaling trolls .
Take your whinge back to 2005 , where somebody might give a crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF kind of troll-ass summary is this?
It's be like seeing a Microsoft announcement like this:Office 2010 is almost out; is it gayer than nine guys blowing eight guys, or just a total piece of crap?BTW: a preemptive STFU to the scaling trolls.
Take your whinge back to 2005, where somebody might give a crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31069740</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265708640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For whatever reason, some programmers think that programming should be done this way. They don't want to document tricky constructs for less experienced programmers, or to document some of the legacy-system data model that lives in their head, or do anything that makes programming somewhat enjoyable. They want all programmers to struggle and then marvel at the technical genius of the hack-upon-hack they had to perform to do something the framework didn't want them to. And if you can't figure that out on your own, you're clearly an inferior programmer.</p><p>Of course, they'll be lauded as the hero because they are the only person who understands legacy system X since they put so little effort into making it understandable by anyone other than themselves. And they don't write any tests, so although the system is buggy they'll pull an all nighter to fix a critical bug and get even more praise for their outstanding efforts.</p><p>Do those mythical and magical pair-programming, knowledge-sharing, agile-developing teams actually exist or only in theory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For whatever reason , some programmers think that programming should be done this way .
They do n't want to document tricky constructs for less experienced programmers , or to document some of the legacy-system data model that lives in their head , or do anything that makes programming somewhat enjoyable .
They want all programmers to struggle and then marvel at the technical genius of the hack-upon-hack they had to perform to do something the framework did n't want them to .
And if you ca n't figure that out on your own , you 're clearly an inferior programmer.Of course , they 'll be lauded as the hero because they are the only person who understands legacy system X since they put so little effort into making it understandable by anyone other than themselves .
And they do n't write any tests , so although the system is buggy they 'll pull an all nighter to fix a critical bug and get even more praise for their outstanding efforts.Do those mythical and magical pair-programming , knowledge-sharing , agile-developing teams actually exist or only in theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For whatever reason, some programmers think that programming should be done this way.
They don't want to document tricky constructs for less experienced programmers, or to document some of the legacy-system data model that lives in their head, or do anything that makes programming somewhat enjoyable.
They want all programmers to struggle and then marvel at the technical genius of the hack-upon-hack they had to perform to do something the framework didn't want them to.
And if you can't figure that out on your own, you're clearly an inferior programmer.Of course, they'll be lauded as the hero because they are the only person who understands legacy system X since they put so little effort into making it understandable by anyone other than themselves.
And they don't write any tests, so although the system is buggy they'll pull an all nighter to fix a critical bug and get even more praise for their outstanding efforts.Do those mythical and magical pair-programming, knowledge-sharing, agile-developing teams actually exist or only in theory?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31060440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31060440</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>The Abused Developer</author>
	<datestamp>1265643960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>100\% I agree; however, this is the cultural part of programming; I live in the Toronto area and in more than 6 years I haven't seen even one project where the principle of HOW vs WHY has been practiced. It has become the norm in the profession here
to write non-commented code - besides poorly designing it; being self-centered and short-sighted under the criteria of the *short cuts* is the standard you are expected to submit 100\% otherwise you'll be punished by the team who wrote it in the first place or the manager who desired it that way. So, from this perspective I think Rails style and habits represents more of a culture becoming dominant these days in the programming field than something Ruby/Rails specific.</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % I agree ; however , this is the cultural part of programming ; I live in the Toronto area and in more than 6 years I have n't seen even one project where the principle of HOW vs WHY has been practiced .
It has become the norm in the profession here to write non-commented code - besides poorly designing it ; being self-centered and short-sighted under the criteria of the * short cuts * is the standard you are expected to submit 100 \ % otherwise you 'll be punished by the team who wrote it in the first place or the manager who desired it that way .
So , from this perspective I think Rails style and habits represents more of a culture becoming dominant these days in the programming field than something Ruby/Rails specific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% I agree; however, this is the cultural part of programming; I live in the Toronto area and in more than 6 years I haven't seen even one project where the principle of HOW vs WHY has been practiced.
It has become the norm in the profession here
to write non-commented code - besides poorly designing it; being self-centered and short-sighted under the criteria of the *short cuts* is the standard you are expected to submit 100\% otherwise you'll be punished by the team who wrote it in the first place or the manager who desired it that way.
So, from this perspective I think Rails style and habits represents more of a culture becoming dominant these days in the programming field than something Ruby/Rails specific.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058418</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265569920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha</p><p>wtf d00d</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahawtf d00d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahawtf d00d</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056420</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1265549700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The magic of math, my response is a sum of two of my answers: 10.<br>
Now guess what my answers were...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The magic of math , my response is a sum of two of my answers : 10 .
Now guess what my answers were.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The magic of math, my response is a sum of two of my answers: 10.
Now guess what my answers were...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056056</id>
	<title>A ton of Rails 3 Beta links</title>
	<author>Peter Cooper</author>
	<datestamp>1265545740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over at Ruby Inside we did (and are maintaining) a <a href="http://www.rubyinside.com/rails-3-0-beta-links-2966.html" title="rubyinside.com">roundup of ~36 Rails 3.0 beta links/articles</a> [rubyinside.com] (it's up to about 40 now, I think). If you've got Rails 3.0 installed and want to know how to use X or Y or want to learn some of the back story/motivation, the links should come in useful. They're only things that are actually worth reading. Well, mostly..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over at Ruby Inside we did ( and are maintaining ) a roundup of ~ 36 Rails 3.0 beta links/articles [ rubyinside.com ] ( it 's up to about 40 now , I think ) .
If you 've got Rails 3.0 installed and want to know how to use X or Y or want to learn some of the back story/motivation , the links should come in useful .
They 're only things that are actually worth reading .
Well , mostly.. : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over at Ruby Inside we did (and are maintaining) a roundup of ~36 Rails 3.0 beta links/articles [rubyinside.com] (it's up to about 40 now, I think).
If you've got Rails 3.0 installed and want to know how to use X or Y or want to learn some of the back story/motivation, the links should come in useful.
They're only things that are actually worth reading.
Well, mostly.. :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056346</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265548920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ruby doesn't suck, I first checked it out around 2003 and impressions were good.  Wrote a couple of small programs for fun and moved on.  Never used it seriously because I'd use perl, python, PHP, javascript, lua or shell scripting where they're strongest and there's zero advantage to using ruby in any real world situation I can think off.</p><p>Rails let 'developers' with no fucking clue whatsoever churn out cookie-cutter apps that performed about as well as you'd expect.  The bullshit being spewed forth a couple of years back was offensive because it put us in an unfavorable positions with potential clients.</p><blockquote><div><p>No, we can't write a high load web site in two days using a slow scripting language and ORM.  What you're asking for is two months work and it'll be written in perl or PHP with anything heavyweight being done in C; alternatively we can write the entire thing in Java.  Yes, we're more expensive than the Rails shop.  Yes, the Rails shop are offering [biting tongue] a faster turnaround.</p></div></blockquote><p>Long story, short story.  We're still in business, several of the Rails shops we bid against are not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ruby does n't suck , I first checked it out around 2003 and impressions were good .
Wrote a couple of small programs for fun and moved on .
Never used it seriously because I 'd use perl , python , PHP , javascript , lua or shell scripting where they 're strongest and there 's zero advantage to using ruby in any real world situation I can think off.Rails let 'developers ' with no fucking clue whatsoever churn out cookie-cutter apps that performed about as well as you 'd expect .
The bullshit being spewed forth a couple of years back was offensive because it put us in an unfavorable positions with potential clients.No , we ca n't write a high load web site in two days using a slow scripting language and ORM .
What you 're asking for is two months work and it 'll be written in perl or PHP with anything heavyweight being done in C ; alternatively we can write the entire thing in Java .
Yes , we 're more expensive than the Rails shop .
Yes , the Rails shop are offering [ biting tongue ] a faster turnaround.Long story , short story .
We 're still in business , several of the Rails shops we bid against are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ruby doesn't suck, I first checked it out around 2003 and impressions were good.
Wrote a couple of small programs for fun and moved on.
Never used it seriously because I'd use perl, python, PHP, javascript, lua or shell scripting where they're strongest and there's zero advantage to using ruby in any real world situation I can think off.Rails let 'developers' with no fucking clue whatsoever churn out cookie-cutter apps that performed about as well as you'd expect.
The bullshit being spewed forth a couple of years back was offensive because it put us in an unfavorable positions with potential clients.No, we can't write a high load web site in two days using a slow scripting language and ORM.
What you're asking for is two months work and it'll be written in perl or PHP with anything heavyweight being done in C; alternatively we can write the entire thing in Java.
Yes, we're more expensive than the Rails shop.
Yes, the Rails shop are offering [biting tongue] a faster turnaround.Long story, short story.
We're still in business, several of the Rails shops we bid against are not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056336</id>
	<title>Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265548800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slightly off-topic, but since a lot of comments are about how Ruby and Rails has nothing other popular dynamic languages and frameworks have to offer, I'd like to say there's one thing which drew me to Rails which I couldn't find in any popular Python or PHP web frameworks.</p><p>Testing. Craftmanship. Quality. This is more cutural than technical. While it's technically possible to write tests in PHP and Python, it just seems like people rarely do (especially so with PHP). And even if they do write tests, it's an afterthought. Things may have changed since I've done any serious development in PHP or Python, but I've done a little with Django and the testing that's done in the community didn't come close to Rails at the time. I'd be lucky to find a plugin authour whom had a test suite for their work and there was nothing of the function or quality of RSpec or Cucumber around.</p><p>This kind of lax "I tried it in my browser so it works" attitude to web software development in PHP and Python almost made me want to give up on web development and get into some other type of programming with some real professionalism - but thankfully I found Rails and glad that in general Rails programmers take their work seriously.</p><p>Having said all of that, I don't want to paint too negative a picture of Python. There are some awesome frameworks and communities in the Python world - Twisted/Divmod, for example, where the community really are bright and dedicated to test driven development. Zope 3/Grok is another. But I couldn't find anything in the mainstream web development world which were. Being mainstream is unfortunately important in getting anyone to support your descision - be they management, or a client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly off-topic , but since a lot of comments are about how Ruby and Rails has nothing other popular dynamic languages and frameworks have to offer , I 'd like to say there 's one thing which drew me to Rails which I could n't find in any popular Python or PHP web frameworks.Testing .
Craftmanship. Quality .
This is more cutural than technical .
While it 's technically possible to write tests in PHP and Python , it just seems like people rarely do ( especially so with PHP ) .
And even if they do write tests , it 's an afterthought .
Things may have changed since I 've done any serious development in PHP or Python , but I 've done a little with Django and the testing that 's done in the community did n't come close to Rails at the time .
I 'd be lucky to find a plugin authour whom had a test suite for their work and there was nothing of the function or quality of RSpec or Cucumber around.This kind of lax " I tried it in my browser so it works " attitude to web software development in PHP and Python almost made me want to give up on web development and get into some other type of programming with some real professionalism - but thankfully I found Rails and glad that in general Rails programmers take their work seriously.Having said all of that , I do n't want to paint too negative a picture of Python .
There are some awesome frameworks and communities in the Python world - Twisted/Divmod , for example , where the community really are bright and dedicated to test driven development .
Zope 3/Grok is another .
But I could n't find anything in the mainstream web development world which were .
Being mainstream is unfortunately important in getting anyone to support your descision - be they management , or a client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly off-topic, but since a lot of comments are about how Ruby and Rails has nothing other popular dynamic languages and frameworks have to offer, I'd like to say there's one thing which drew me to Rails which I couldn't find in any popular Python or PHP web frameworks.Testing.
Craftmanship. Quality.
This is more cutural than technical.
While it's technically possible to write tests in PHP and Python, it just seems like people rarely do (especially so with PHP).
And even if they do write tests, it's an afterthought.
Things may have changed since I've done any serious development in PHP or Python, but I've done a little with Django and the testing that's done in the community didn't come close to Rails at the time.
I'd be lucky to find a plugin authour whom had a test suite for their work and there was nothing of the function or quality of RSpec or Cucumber around.This kind of lax "I tried it in my browser so it works" attitude to web software development in PHP and Python almost made me want to give up on web development and get into some other type of programming with some real professionalism - but thankfully I found Rails and glad that in general Rails programmers take their work seriously.Having said all of that, I don't want to paint too negative a picture of Python.
There are some awesome frameworks and communities in the Python world - Twisted/Divmod, for example, where the community really are bright and dedicated to test driven development.
Zope 3/Grok is another.
But I couldn't find anything in the mainstream web development world which were.
Being mainstream is unfortunately important in getting anyone to support your descision - be they management, or a client.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31059460</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265631600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No ISP is stupid enought to offer support to a resource-hogging and performance-killer language like RoR...</htmltext>
<tokenext>No ISP is stupid enought to offer support to a resource-hogging and performance-killer language like RoR.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No ISP is stupid enought to offer support to a resource-hogging and performance-killer language like RoR...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058180</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>beguyld</author>
	<datestamp>1265566500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While it may not be your preference, applications written in Ruby are supposed to be written in such a way that they are self documenting. Contrary to other languages, the expressiveness of Ruby allows the developer to write code that means as much, if not more, than formal documentation.</p></div><p>Yeah, sure...  I've inherited plenty of code by people who were religious about the "no comments" idea. Utter nonsense.</p><p>Yes, my own code is as self documented as possible. It shows HOW, but it can't show WHY. Code alone can 't describe the overall context of why that code, and now some other code, or how it fits into the whole.  That's what comment blocks are for.</p><p>Otherwise, you're just doing like the current US government, and burdening future generations with the true cost of today's "short cuts." It's self-centered and short-sighted.</p><p>If it is truly "throw away" code, fine. Don't comment it. But that is about 0.001 \% of all the code I've seen in the last 25 years.. Good rule of thumb is that all code lives forever, and will be read 100 times for every time it is read. Thus the ROI on comments is enormous and always worth doing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it may not be your preference , applications written in Ruby are supposed to be written in such a way that they are self documenting .
Contrary to other languages , the expressiveness of Ruby allows the developer to write code that means as much , if not more , than formal documentation.Yeah , sure... I 've inherited plenty of code by people who were religious about the " no comments " idea .
Utter nonsense.Yes , my own code is as self documented as possible .
It shows HOW , but it ca n't show WHY .
Code alone can 't describe the overall context of why that code , and now some other code , or how it fits into the whole .
That 's what comment blocks are for.Otherwise , you 're just doing like the current US government , and burdening future generations with the true cost of today 's " short cuts .
" It 's self-centered and short-sighted.If it is truly " throw away " code , fine .
Do n't comment it .
But that is about 0.001 \ % of all the code I 've seen in the last 25 years.. Good rule of thumb is that all code lives forever , and will be read 100 times for every time it is read .
Thus the ROI on comments is enormous and always worth doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it may not be your preference, applications written in Ruby are supposed to be written in such a way that they are self documenting.
Contrary to other languages, the expressiveness of Ruby allows the developer to write code that means as much, if not more, than formal documentation.Yeah, sure...  I've inherited plenty of code by people who were religious about the "no comments" idea.
Utter nonsense.Yes, my own code is as self documented as possible.
It shows HOW, but it can't show WHY.
Code alone can 't describe the overall context of why that code, and now some other code, or how it fits into the whole.
That's what comment blocks are for.Otherwise, you're just doing like the current US government, and burdening future generations with the true cost of today's "short cuts.
" It's self-centered and short-sighted.If it is truly "throw away" code, fine.
Don't comment it.
But that is about 0.001 \% of all the code I've seen in the last 25 years.. Good rule of thumb is that all code lives forever, and will be read 100 times for every time it is read.
Thus the ROI on comments is enormous and always worth doing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31063672</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>beguyld</author>
	<datestamp>1265660940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps some of this is an outgrowth of a misunderstanding of Agile Development, or at least a miscalculation of the relative costs of investing a little something for the future.</p><p>While I'm completely on-board with the Agile Development concepts in general, many developers do seem to use it as an excuse to put zero investment into making the code base understandable to future developers. (including themselves months or years from later)</p><p>The large percentage of development being web-based, and moving very fast, probably has something to do with it as well. If the code, and the company, doesn't stay around very long, then perhaps the comments don't matter. But if the company is successful and that code sticks around for a few years and turns into a million lines of code, then that missing contextual information will become a huge problem.</p><p>And the problem is there whether management or the original developers recognize it or not.</p><p>All that said, really good TDD probably helps quite a bit, where the tests become the documentation. (though I don't think it can entirely replace well-placed comment blocks, by people who can step outside their own headspace once in a while)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps some of this is an outgrowth of a misunderstanding of Agile Development , or at least a miscalculation of the relative costs of investing a little something for the future.While I 'm completely on-board with the Agile Development concepts in general , many developers do seem to use it as an excuse to put zero investment into making the code base understandable to future developers .
( including themselves months or years from later ) The large percentage of development being web-based , and moving very fast , probably has something to do with it as well .
If the code , and the company , does n't stay around very long , then perhaps the comments do n't matter .
But if the company is successful and that code sticks around for a few years and turns into a million lines of code , then that missing contextual information will become a huge problem.And the problem is there whether management or the original developers recognize it or not.All that said , really good TDD probably helps quite a bit , where the tests become the documentation .
( though I do n't think it can entirely replace well-placed comment blocks , by people who can step outside their own headspace once in a while )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps some of this is an outgrowth of a misunderstanding of Agile Development, or at least a miscalculation of the relative costs of investing a little something for the future.While I'm completely on-board with the Agile Development concepts in general, many developers do seem to use it as an excuse to put zero investment into making the code base understandable to future developers.
(including themselves months or years from later)The large percentage of development being web-based, and moving very fast, probably has something to do with it as well.
If the code, and the company, doesn't stay around very long, then perhaps the comments don't matter.
But if the company is successful and that code sticks around for a few years and turns into a million lines of code, then that missing contextual information will become a huge problem.And the problem is there whether management or the original developers recognize it or not.All that said, really good TDD probably helps quite a bit, where the tests become the documentation.
(though I don't think it can entirely replace well-placed comment blocks, by people who can step outside their own headspace once in a while)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31060440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056068</id>
	<title>Buzzword Alert!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...agile...</p></div><p>That's where I stopped reading. I'm on a no-buzzword diet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...agile...That 's where I stopped reading .
I 'm on a no-buzzword diet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...agile...That's where I stopped reading.
I'm on a no-buzzword diet.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056394</id>
	<title>Re:I think everyone would agree here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265549520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>So, is version 3 of RoR going to be a big deal, more of the same (good or bad), or just churning technology?</p></div><p>How about, we don't care? Back in the day, Ruby on Rails promised that it will "kill developers" and CEO-s will be coding the sites themselves in Rails, the hype was THIS big. "Programmers obsolete??".</p><p>Soon after it turned out "real programmers" can't scale a Rails app to save their job (Twitter).</p><p>Your moment of marketing glory is over. Have the decency to go in a corner and die.</p></div><p>Just like Google, anybody saying one bad word against the slashbot groupthink that RoR is the second coming gets modded into oblivion.  AC was just saying what many of us think, just like PHP RoR is a great language to write not-so-serious apps on.  It's praises are sung by the same group that think MySQL is the ultimate enterprise database.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is version 3 of RoR going to be a big deal , more of the same ( good or bad ) , or just churning technology ? How about , we do n't care ?
Back in the day , Ruby on Rails promised that it will " kill developers " and CEO-s will be coding the sites themselves in Rails , the hype was THIS big .
" Programmers obsolete ? ?
" .Soon after it turned out " real programmers " ca n't scale a Rails app to save their job ( Twitter ) .Your moment of marketing glory is over .
Have the decency to go in a corner and die.Just like Google , anybody saying one bad word against the slashbot groupthink that RoR is the second coming gets modded into oblivion .
AC was just saying what many of us think , just like PHP RoR is a great language to write not-so-serious apps on .
It 's praises are sung by the same group that think MySQL is the ultimate enterprise database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is version 3 of RoR going to be a big deal, more of the same (good or bad), or just churning technology?How about, we don't care?
Back in the day, Ruby on Rails promised that it will "kill developers" and CEO-s will be coding the sites themselves in Rails, the hype was THIS big.
"Programmers obsolete??
".Soon after it turned out "real programmers" can't scale a Rails app to save their job (Twitter).Your moment of marketing glory is over.
Have the decency to go in a corner and die.Just like Google, anybody saying one bad word against the slashbot groupthink that RoR is the second coming gets modded into oblivion.
AC was just saying what many of us think, just like PHP RoR is a great language to write not-so-serious apps on.
It's praises are sung by the same group that think MySQL is the ultimate enterprise database.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058252</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265567520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ruby's a great language with a mediocre runtime (but getting better) and Rails is a great idea with massive breakage and version dependency problems among minor versions.  Maybe that just means it's not done yet, but, man, stuff should work on 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 the same way and Rails 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 should cause huge breakage (I'm only recalling those versions from memory, apply fuzz).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ruby 's a great language with a mediocre runtime ( but getting better ) and Rails is a great idea with massive breakage and version dependency problems among minor versions .
Maybe that just means it 's not done yet , but , man , stuff should work on 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 the same way and Rails 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 should cause huge breakage ( I 'm only recalling those versions from memory , apply fuzz ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ruby's a great language with a mediocre runtime (but getting better) and Rails is a great idea with massive breakage and version dependency problems among minor versions.
Maybe that just means it's not done yet, but, man, stuff should work on 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 the same way and Rails 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 should cause huge breakage (I'm only recalling those versions from memory, apply fuzz).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056078</id>
	<title>7 seven 7 seven 7 seven 7 seven 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>7 seven 7</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>7 seven 7</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7 seven 7</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31066108</id>
	<title>Re:I think everyone would agree here...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265627880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just like Google, anybody saying one bad word against the slashbot groupthink that RoR is the second coming gets modded into oblivion.</p></div> </blockquote><p>As with Google, the people posting negative comments about RoR are at least as negative as those posting positive comments, although for some reason its only those posting negative comments that portray the other side as "the Slashbot groupthink" and pretend to be a small oppressed group fighting the Man.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Google , anybody saying one bad word against the slashbot groupthink that RoR is the second coming gets modded into oblivion .
As with Google , the people posting negative comments about RoR are at least as negative as those posting positive comments , although for some reason its only those posting negative comments that portray the other side as " the Slashbot groupthink " and pretend to be a small oppressed group fighting the Man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Google, anybody saying one bad word against the slashbot groupthink that RoR is the second coming gets modded into oblivion.
As with Google, the people posting negative comments about RoR are at least as negative as those posting positive comments, although for some reason its only those posting negative comments that portray the other side as "the Slashbot groupthink" and pretend to be a small oppressed group fighting the Man.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057224</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265557500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ASmallOrange.com has Ruby web app hosting for $5 <b>per year</b>.</p><p>Google App Engine offers JRuby hosting for <b>free</b>, though you have to deal with App Engine's miserable Java performance problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ASmallOrange.com has Ruby web app hosting for $ 5 per year.Google App Engine offers JRuby hosting for free , though you have to deal with App Engine 's miserable Java performance problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ASmallOrange.com has Ruby web app hosting for $5 per year.Google App Engine offers JRuby hosting for free, though you have to deal with App Engine's miserable Java performance problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058494</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265570940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe its just me, but a language that encourages monkey patching and anonymous methods is not very "self-documenting". Any trips I've made into the Rails source code have resulted in a lot of WTFing trying to figure out what's really going on.</p><p>Plus that entirely misses the point of an "API" being a documented interface rather than a random heap of methods sitting on your disk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe its just me , but a language that encourages monkey patching and anonymous methods is not very " self-documenting " .
Any trips I 've made into the Rails source code have resulted in a lot of WTFing trying to figure out what 's really going on.Plus that entirely misses the point of an " API " being a documented interface rather than a random heap of methods sitting on your disk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe its just me, but a language that encourages monkey patching and anonymous methods is not very "self-documenting".
Any trips I've made into the Rails source code have resulted in a lot of WTFing trying to figure out what's really going on.Plus that entirely misses the point of an "API" being a documented interface rather than a random heap of methods sitting on your disk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056310</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265548380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who the fuck is using "web hosting" these days? Get a $15-20/month VPS and stop whining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the fuck is using " web hosting " these days ?
Get a $ 15-20/month VPS and stop whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the fuck is using "web hosting" these days?
Get a $15-20/month VPS and stop whining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056066</id>
	<title>It's a great day to be a rails developer!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just love the rails development community...they've really shown that they welcome any new ideas, frameworks etc  and incorporate the best of everything into a fully fledged release.</p><p>Well done and Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just love the rails development community...they 've really shown that they welcome any new ideas , frameworks etc and incorporate the best of everything into a fully fledged release.Well done and Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just love the rails development community...they've really shown that they welcome any new ideas, frameworks etc  and incorporate the best of everything into a fully fledged release.Well done and Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057200</id>
	<title>Ah, the anti-groupthink groupthink...</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1265557260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have an original thought of your own?</p><p>Take a look at some of the replies. I see two which bash Rails quite a lot, they just actually put some thought into it. They got modded up, and you got modded down.</p><p>But hey...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ruby on Rails promised that it will "kill developers"</p></div><p>I don't think anyone ever claimed that, except you.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Soon after it turned out "real programmers" can't scale a Rails app to save their job (Twitter).</p></div><p>They still have jobs, and Twitter still runs Rails on the web interface.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Your moment of marketing glory is over.</p></div><p>We're programmers. Marketing doesn't quite work if there isn't at least <i>something</i> to back it up -- that's why we're not all using ASP.NET.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>AC was just saying what many of us think,</p></div><p>Nice how you post this as an AC, also...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>just like PHP RoR is a great language</p></div><p>Nope, PHP is a language, and it's not great. Ruby is a language, but Ruby on Rails is not a language, it's a framework.</p><p>I could find dozens of reasons Ruby is better than PHP, but hey, Facebook runs on PHP.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's praises are sung by the same group that think MySQL is the ultimate enterprise database.</p></div><p>Rails supports Oracle and SQL Server. But hey, MySQL still runs Twitter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have an original thought of your own ? Take a look at some of the replies .
I see two which bash Rails quite a lot , they just actually put some thought into it .
They got modded up , and you got modded down.But hey...Ruby on Rails promised that it will " kill developers " I do n't think anyone ever claimed that , except you.Soon after it turned out " real programmers " ca n't scale a Rails app to save their job ( Twitter ) .They still have jobs , and Twitter still runs Rails on the web interface.Your moment of marketing glory is over.We 're programmers .
Marketing does n't quite work if there is n't at least something to back it up -- that 's why we 're not all using ASP.NET.AC was just saying what many of us think,Nice how you post this as an AC , also...just like PHP RoR is a great languageNope , PHP is a language , and it 's not great .
Ruby is a language , but Ruby on Rails is not a language , it 's a framework.I could find dozens of reasons Ruby is better than PHP , but hey , Facebook runs on PHP.It 's praises are sung by the same group that think MySQL is the ultimate enterprise database.Rails supports Oracle and SQL Server .
But hey , MySQL still runs Twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have an original thought of your own?Take a look at some of the replies.
I see two which bash Rails quite a lot, they just actually put some thought into it.
They got modded up, and you got modded down.But hey...Ruby on Rails promised that it will "kill developers"I don't think anyone ever claimed that, except you.Soon after it turned out "real programmers" can't scale a Rails app to save their job (Twitter).They still have jobs, and Twitter still runs Rails on the web interface.Your moment of marketing glory is over.We're programmers.
Marketing doesn't quite work if there isn't at least something to back it up -- that's why we're not all using ASP.NET.AC was just saying what many of us think,Nice how you post this as an AC, also...just like PHP RoR is a great languageNope, PHP is a language, and it's not great.
Ruby is a language, but Ruby on Rails is not a language, it's a framework.I could find dozens of reasons Ruby is better than PHP, but hey, Facebook runs on PHP.It's praises are sung by the same group that think MySQL is the ultimate enterprise database.Rails supports Oracle and SQL Server.
But hey, MySQL still runs Twitter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056006</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>Foofoobar</author>
	<datestamp>1265545380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot Groovy and Grails does it better<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot Groovy and Grails does it better : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot Groovy and Grails does it better :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990</id>
	<title>Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please pick form the list below</p><p>Ruby and/or Rails sucks because:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1. It doesn't scale (Twitter)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2. It's slow<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3. I read somewhere that Python was a better language<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 4. I write PHP, I can do everything Ruby/Rails can do better<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 5. My obnoxious younger coworker uses it<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 6. It's not lightweight enough<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 7. The ruby community is full of over-hyping zelous twits<br>Ruby and/or Rails is awesome because:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1. It scales within reason (Twitter, Lighthouse, Shopify)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2. It's as fast as Python and PHP<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3. I read somewhere it was better than Python<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 4. I used to write PHP, Ruby's been a godsend<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 5. There are so many motivated and innovative people in the community<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 6. It's featureful<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 7. Pythonistas are over-hyping jealous twits</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please pick form the list belowRuby and/or Rails sucks because :     1 .
It does n't scale ( Twitter )     2 .
It 's slow     3 .
I read somewhere that Python was a better language     4 .
I write PHP , I can do everything Ruby/Rails can do better     5 .
My obnoxious younger coworker uses it     6 .
It 's not lightweight enough     7 .
The ruby community is full of over-hyping zelous twitsRuby and/or Rails is awesome because :     1 .
It scales within reason ( Twitter , Lighthouse , Shopify )     2 .
It 's as fast as Python and PHP     3 .
I read somewhere it was better than Python     4 .
I used to write PHP , Ruby 's been a godsend     5 .
There are so many motivated and innovative people in the community     6 .
It 's featureful     7 .
Pythonistas are over-hyping jealous twits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please pick form the list belowRuby and/or Rails sucks because:
    1.
It doesn't scale (Twitter)
    2.
It's slow
    3.
I read somewhere that Python was a better language
    4.
I write PHP, I can do everything Ruby/Rails can do better
    5.
My obnoxious younger coworker uses it
    6.
It's not lightweight enough
    7.
The ruby community is full of over-hyping zelous twitsRuby and/or Rails is awesome because:
    1.
It scales within reason (Twitter, Lighthouse, Shopify)
    2.
It's as fast as Python and PHP
    3.
I read somewhere it was better than Python
    4.
I used to write PHP, Ruby's been a godsend
    5.
There are so many motivated and innovative people in the community
    6.
It's featureful
    7.
Pythonistas are over-hyping jealous twits</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057830</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1265563020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't that be the other way around? local web hosting services suck because none of them offers Ruby and/or Rails in their low-cost packages.</p><p>Yeah, yeah, grandma won't care whose fault it is when she can't run her knitting patterns e-store, but put the blame where its due. It's not Rails' fault that web hosting services won't offer a language worth shit unless you pay for the priviledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't that be the other way around ?
local web hosting services suck because none of them offers Ruby and/or Rails in their low-cost packages.Yeah , yeah , grandma wo n't care whose fault it is when she ca n't run her knitting patterns e-store , but put the blame where its due .
It 's not Rails ' fault that web hosting services wo n't offer a language worth shit unless you pay for the priviledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't that be the other way around?
local web hosting services suck because none of them offers Ruby and/or Rails in their low-cost packages.Yeah, yeah, grandma won't care whose fault it is when she can't run her knitting patterns e-store, but put the blame where its due.
It's not Rails' fault that web hosting services won't offer a language worth shit unless you pay for the priviledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057110</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>s\_p\_oneil</author>
	<datestamp>1265556420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good post, but IMO it's a shame you left this one out:</p><p>Ruby and/or Rails sucks because:<br>8) It doesn't use spacing to delineate code blocks</p><p>Ruby and/or Rails is awesome because:<br>8) It doesn't use spacing to delineate code blocks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good post , but IMO it 's a shame you left this one out : Ruby and/or Rails sucks because : 8 ) It does n't use spacing to delineate code blocksRuby and/or Rails is awesome because : 8 ) It does n't use spacing to delineate code blocks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good post, but IMO it's a shame you left this one out:Ruby and/or Rails sucks because:8) It doesn't use spacing to delineate code blocksRuby and/or Rails is awesome because:8) It doesn't use spacing to delineate code blocks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31060692</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>mini me</author>
	<datestamp>1265646000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, here is a common idiom in virtually every Rails project. Please show me how comments can improve the understandability of the following code:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>class Foo &lt; ActiveRecord::Base<br>
&nbsp; has\_many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:bars<br>end</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Another common pattern is:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>class FoosController &lt; ApplicationController<br>
&nbsp; def index<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; @foos = Foo.all<br>
&nbsp; end<br>end</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Again, I would love to see how comments can improve the code. I'm not saying that comments are never necessary. I am saying that if you need them in your average Rails app, you are doing it wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , here is a common idiom in virtually every Rails project .
Please show me how comments can improve the understandability of the following code : class Foo   has \ _many : barsend Another common pattern is : class FoosController   def index     @ foos = Foo.all   endend Again , I would love to see how comments can improve the code .
I 'm not saying that comments are never necessary .
I am saying that if you need them in your average Rails app , you are doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, here is a common idiom in virtually every Rails project.
Please show me how comments can improve the understandability of the following code: class Foo 
  has\_many :barsend Another common pattern is: class FoosController 
  def index
    @foos = Foo.all
  endend Again, I would love to see how comments can improve the code.
I'm not saying that comments are never necessary.
I am saying that if you need them in your average Rails app, you are doing it wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31063518</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1265660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My pick:</p><p>Ruby sucks because:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. It's slow<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7. The ruby community is full of over-hyping zelous twits</p><p>Rails sucks because:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6. It's not lightweight enough</p><p>Ruby is awesome because:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. I used to write PHP, Ruby's been a godsend<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5. There are so many motivated and innovative people in the community<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6. It's featureful</p><p>Full disclosure:</p><p>Ruby sure isn't perfect, but, of all the languages I've tried (and there are many), it seems to me Ruby sucks the least. I use it whenever I can, which is when another language isn't a better choice (e.g. speed is required) or mandated (e.g. required to do the project in Java). Current implementations are dog slow, and, as always, there are people who will hype it up to ridiculous levels. But hey, that's how Java got big.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>I don't really use Rails much, and I probably wouldn't have built it as it is, but I enjoyed working with it in the past. At the time, it did certainly rock the world. Still, I think Ruby's main strength is in quickly building \_simple\_ things and its power to make lots of things simple. Grab the modules you need and/or (have someone) tailor the language to your needs, then write your program in a few lines of code. That's where Ruby shines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My pick : Ruby sucks because :         2 .
It 's slow         7 .
The ruby community is full of over-hyping zelous twitsRails sucks because :         6 .
It 's not lightweight enoughRuby is awesome because :         4 .
I used to write PHP , Ruby 's been a godsend         5 .
There are so many motivated and innovative people in the community         6 .
It 's featurefulFull disclosure : Ruby sure is n't perfect , but , of all the languages I 've tried ( and there are many ) , it seems to me Ruby sucks the least .
I use it whenever I can , which is when another language is n't a better choice ( e.g .
speed is required ) or mandated ( e.g .
required to do the project in Java ) .
Current implementations are dog slow , and , as always , there are people who will hype it up to ridiculous levels .
But hey , that 's how Java got big .
; - ) I do n't really use Rails much , and I probably would n't have built it as it is , but I enjoyed working with it in the past .
At the time , it did certainly rock the world .
Still , I think Ruby 's main strength is in quickly building \ _simple \ _ things and its power to make lots of things simple .
Grab the modules you need and/or ( have someone ) tailor the language to your needs , then write your program in a few lines of code .
That 's where Ruby shines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My pick:Ruby sucks because:
        2.
It's slow
        7.
The ruby community is full of over-hyping zelous twitsRails sucks because:
        6.
It's not lightweight enoughRuby is awesome because:
        4.
I used to write PHP, Ruby's been a godsend
        5.
There are so many motivated and innovative people in the community
        6.
It's featurefulFull disclosure:Ruby sure isn't perfect, but, of all the languages I've tried (and there are many), it seems to me Ruby sucks the least.
I use it whenever I can, which is when another language isn't a better choice (e.g.
speed is required) or mandated (e.g.
required to do the project in Java).
Current implementations are dog slow, and, as always, there are people who will hype it up to ridiculous levels.
But hey, that's how Java got big.
;-)I don't really use Rails much, and I probably wouldn't have built it as it is, but I enjoyed working with it in the past.
At the time, it did certainly rock the world.
Still, I think Ruby's main strength is in quickly building \_simple\_ things and its power to make lots of things simple.
Grab the modules you need and/or (have someone) tailor the language to your needs, then write your program in a few lines of code.
That's where Ruby shines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056866</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>metalhed77</author>
	<datestamp>1265553720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you want good, cheap rails hosting you could easily do Dreamhost or Heroku. I'd go with Heroku, they'll scale up pretty well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you want good , cheap rails hosting you could easily do Dreamhost or Heroku .
I 'd go with Heroku , they 'll scale up pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you want good, cheap rails hosting you could easily do Dreamhost or Heroku.
I'd go with Heroku, they'll scale up pretty well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056630</id>
	<title>Re:Buzzword Alert!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265551740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's where I stopped reading. I'm on a no-buzzword diet.</p></div><p>Excellent!  More enjoyable and better paying work (and better co-workers) for the rest of us clued enough to realize when there's real substance behind those buzzwords.  Have fun with that self ghettoizing!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's where I stopped reading .
I 'm on a no-buzzword diet.Excellent !
More enjoyable and better paying work ( and better co-workers ) for the rest of us clued enough to realize when there 's real substance behind those buzzwords .
Have fun with that self ghettoizing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's where I stopped reading.
I'm on a no-buzzword diet.Excellent!
More enjoyable and better paying work (and better co-workers) for the rest of us clued enough to realize when there's real substance behind those buzzwords.
Have fun with that self ghettoizing!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31067550</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265636400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While it may not be your preference, applications written in Ruby are supposed to be written in such a way that they are self documenting.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Code in any language should be self-documenting to the extent the language allows, that doesn't excuse <i>not</i> doing additional documentation when the language (or your use of it) isn't sufficiently self-documenting. Rdoc -- which is included with Ruby -- generates documentation by reading the code <i>and comments</i> for a reason -- because it is assumed that code <i>will not</i> always be sufficient documentation on its own.</p><blockquote><div><p>Contrary to other languages, the expressiveness of Ruby allows the developer to write code that means as much, if not more, than formal documentation.</p></div></blockquote><p>Compared to static languages live Java, its very hard to explicitly express things like expectations about arguments clearly in code in Ruby, and the kind of tests that would express these expectations more clearly are often considered bad style, except in very particular circumstnaces. Documenting these expectations in comments which turn into API docs via Rdoc would seem to generally be the right thing to do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it may not be your preference , applications written in Ruby are supposed to be written in such a way that they are self documenting .
Code in any language should be self-documenting to the extent the language allows , that does n't excuse not doing additional documentation when the language ( or your use of it ) is n't sufficiently self-documenting .
Rdoc -- which is included with Ruby -- generates documentation by reading the code and comments for a reason -- because it is assumed that code will not always be sufficient documentation on its own.Contrary to other languages , the expressiveness of Ruby allows the developer to write code that means as much , if not more , than formal documentation.Compared to static languages live Java , its very hard to explicitly express things like expectations about arguments clearly in code in Ruby , and the kind of tests that would express these expectations more clearly are often considered bad style , except in very particular circumstnaces .
Documenting these expectations in comments which turn into API docs via Rdoc would seem to generally be the right thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it may not be your preference, applications written in Ruby are supposed to be written in such a way that they are self documenting.
Code in any language should be self-documenting to the extent the language allows, that doesn't excuse not doing additional documentation when the language (or your use of it) isn't sufficiently self-documenting.
Rdoc -- which is included with Ruby -- generates documentation by reading the code and comments for a reason -- because it is assumed that code will not always be sufficient documentation on its own.Contrary to other languages, the expressiveness of Ruby allows the developer to write code that means as much, if not more, than formal documentation.Compared to static languages live Java, its very hard to explicitly express things like expectations about arguments clearly in code in Ruby, and the kind of tests that would express these expectations more clearly are often considered bad style, except in very particular circumstnaces.
Documenting these expectations in comments which turn into API docs via Rdoc would seem to generally be the right thing to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31073574</id>
	<title>Re:Testing</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1265737140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being involved somewhat in Ruby's development, I've seen the "There's no need to document" myth bite people many times.</p><p>The single biggest reason why it's a myth: without documentation, you don't know what behavior is intended and supported, versus what behavior is an accident of implementation.</p><p>So then when the developer changes the (apparently accidental) API and hundreds of people's apps break, the blamestorming begins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being involved somewhat in Ruby 's development , I 've seen the " There 's no need to document " myth bite people many times.The single biggest reason why it 's a myth : without documentation , you do n't know what behavior is intended and supported , versus what behavior is an accident of implementation.So then when the developer changes the ( apparently accidental ) API and hundreds of people 's apps break , the blamestorming begins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being involved somewhat in Ruby's development, I've seen the "There's no need to document" myth bite people many times.The single biggest reason why it's a myth: without documentation, you don't know what behavior is intended and supported, versus what behavior is an accident of implementation.So then when the developer changes the (apparently accidental) API and hundreds of people's apps break, the blamestorming begins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055880</id>
	<title>who said that?</title>
	<author>Pirulo</author>
	<datestamp>1265544480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>...a CEO?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a CEO ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a CEO?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057726</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Slashdot Ruby comment form</title>
	<author>metalhed77</author>
	<datestamp>1265562240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I agree, I wrote that post as a joke, almost all the negatives are easily dis-proven falsehoods. The knee-jerk zealots on Slashdot are too arrogant to educate themselves about this language unfortunately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I agree , I wrote that post as a joke , almost all the negatives are easily dis-proven falsehoods .
The knee-jerk zealots on Slashdot are too arrogant to educate themselves about this language unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I agree, I wrote that post as a joke, almost all the negatives are easily dis-proven falsehoods.
The knee-jerk zealots on Slashdot are too arrogant to educate themselves about this language unfortunately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056346</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31066108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31073574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31060692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31063672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31060440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31063518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31069740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31060440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31067550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31059460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1956208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1956208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1956208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31066108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1956208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1956208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057570
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31067550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058180
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31060692
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31060440
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31069740
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31063672
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31073574
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058494
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1956208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31055990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31059460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31058252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31063518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31057110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1956208.31056078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
