Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still relevant?

news.ycombinator.com

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still relevant?

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the right answer. Yes people still write on rails but in my experience it’s because they haven’t used other tools. I had a couple die hard rails members at my last company who claimed nothing was better. We made them write Go for a year and now they are die hard Go fans. If I were writing a web app I would start with Go. It’s a great language that’s easy to learn and fast to write, with all the security of st…

I'm a die hard Ruby guy and now writing some Go and I pretty much hate it. I don't really care for performance or compile speed, I could barely care less. I want a good web framework with tons of community support and a language that lets me easily express my thoughts into code. I'm not getting that with Go.

Well said. I've been a great fan of Clojure for a long time but what stops me from using it for clients is the attitude in the Clojure community that libraries are favoured over frameworks. That's not to say there aren't a few web/REST frameworks in Clojure-land but they are invariably the product of a few individuals with no community support. And they wonder why Clojure has negligible adoption.

Re: Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still relevant?

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, SSR is used quite often, it has just reached the boring stage. Also, rust is too BDSM for rapid CRUD building needs.

Obsolete is probably an overstatement but its in decline IMO. The last few companies I have worked at have moved away from SSR which seems to reflect a wider industry trend. I have worked mostly in enterprise web apps which client side rendering suits better which might have some bias.

Your sample is hardly representative. The big-league Node frameworks are all SSR-based due to the problem presented by pure front-end SPAs. Have a look at Next.js and Remix.

Re: Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still relevant?

#153
To put this in perspective here are some job stats from Indeed.co.uk for London and the UK (excluding London):

London: Rails 237, Django 383, Laravel 149

UK (excl. London): Rails 230, Django 406, Laravel 1001

So, yes, there are less Rails jobs overall but considering there are less than twice as many jobs as with Django, which is powered one of the most popular languages, Rails is clearly still very active in the marketplace.

Re: Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still relevant?

#154

I know that Ruby on Rails is still very much relevant for consultants being paid big $ to fix the disasters left by self-declared “Ninja” developers after they quit and move on to try again from scratch at another company ;)

Don't think it's a tech or language stack-related problem. You can easily find akin situation in any other stacks.

Yep I agree. However there seems to be more self-proclaimed “Ninja” programmers in the Ruby community than in others. Just my impression of course.

Re: Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still relevant?

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There simply is no evidence whatsoever that Ruby is past its prime. People are committing myriad logical fallacies: comparing go language to rails framework, anecdotes about Ruby monoliths, incorrect statements of fact about Ruby capability and more. I like Go, but this is a terrible comparison and I’ve not seen a single comment make a valid point about Ruby’s alleged demise.

Sounds a bit defensive, it is "past its prime": https://octoverse.github.com/#top-languages-over-the-years However, that doesn't mean it is dead, or you can't still do great things with it. Most platforms continue fine on into their twilight years :rofl:. Lotsa folks here getting shit done with perl and lazarus ide.

You are confusing popularity with capability. Ruby is less popular than it was, but it is still very healthy and solving problems. It is also actively developed.

This entire exchange would not have happened if you had simply said, Ruby is less popular than it used to be.

“Past its prime” is a derogatory expression that is invalid in this use case.

Re: Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still relevant?

#156

We're still starting new greenfield projects in Rails every week, and I still believe it's the best foundation for SaaS products. It's great for developer speed and efficiency, the ecosystem of gems is amazing, and we've been able to scale every project we've needed to. We're incorporating React and GraphQL more these days for complex components and APIs but they pair nicely with Rails.

I work at a company with a large Ruby monolith and it’s a disaster. If you’re face deep in the Ruby ecosystem then I’m sure it makes sense, but trying to build services alongside it is truly awful. You want a scalable system that’s easy to write and will grow with you? Write basic Go services.

Monolith vs microservices is not the problem. It's architecture and code design in most cases.

When i hear "Rails monolith is a disaster" what it usually boils down to 8 out of 10 times is people putting their business logic inside models or controllers, when really it should live in its own set of classes, usually called services or service objects.

Here's a guide https://codeclimate.com/blog/7-ways-to-decompose-fat-activer...

Re: Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still relevant?

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds a bit defensive, it is "past its prime": https://octoverse.github.com/#top-languages-over-the-years However, that doesn't mean it is dead, or you can't still do great things with it. Most platforms continue fine on into their twilight years :rofl:. Lotsa folks here getting shit done with perl and lazarus ide.

You are confusing popularity with capability. Ruby is less popular than it was, but it is still very healthy and solving problems. It is also actively developed. This entire exchange would not have happened if you had simply said, Ruby is less popular than it used to be. “Past its prime” is a derogatory expression that is invalid in this use case.

You've just defined “Past its prime,” congrats. :-D

Re: Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still relevant?

#158
My take: - 34yo dev, brasilian(living in Brazil), started with RoR in 2013 and worked with it on and off since them - was the first Software hire in a b2b e-bike engineer-DNA startup in 2019, picked Rails for the 'IoT layer', been working on it since them

In this context, I'm still very happy to be developing in Ruby and Rails and it still feels very fresh to me most of the time.

It may come down to, like Vim, it's not exactly in the new stuff department, it's 'niche', even, but the super users and hardcore community apparently will never let it down. It is very well taken care of software and I think there's a lot of people in a virtuous relationship with it i.e.: probably a lot of people running it to get things done, doing good business, making money and satisfied enough that it sort of doesn't matter much what 'kids' looking for the hot new tech to fill CVs think about it. I think RoR is super solid in this regard.

Following on the Vim analogy, I think both Ruby and Rails have the 'power tool' quality/deph in that it keeps rewarding you with more power the more you get the handle of it, there's few things like TDD on RoR. When you're senior and you're not afraid to tweak things as you want it anymore, things get really interesting. For example:

- Microservices x monoliths: I've built a Service Object layer, all Services have an API of .new(:param, :param)(sugarized to initialize_with :param, :param) and .call, .call!, .queue. These service objects can be strung together, allowing for composition. call without '!' gives you an object you can say .success?, .result and react however you want. .call! will raise exceptions. .queue runs it async in Sidekiq. We have over 40 of them, in some cases we refactored out a piece of functionality(e.g.: google sheets integration) and just deleted a whole folder of them, just like that.

All of these 'actions' can be run from any context: MQTT message, API call, console, Sidekiq, Sidekiq-scheduled, tests. In ruby *anything* can be mocked anytime, have you thought about the power of this? I can make an expectation that an --instance of a class somewhere will receive a call--, it could be mine, it could be a class in a lib, it could be something in the framework.

- Sidekiq just works and is awesome. Free fault-tolerance, performant, scalable.

- Building custom piece of architecture, ruby scripting is very powerful: we had bots simulating the motorcycles running and talking with the backend way before we actually had a board and software able to do that. MQTT messages are relayed to Rails app through a custom long running service, it's a ruby script. Later on we've twisted it to test Firmware Updates Over the Air feature, basically, scripting the script itself. So we have a CI/CD job that allow us to stress test/spec test firmware. Right now I'm doing a middleware so I'll script Rack/Rails next, TDD is going smoothly.

- Maybe tweaking it further to make it more of an a Event Driven application.

I think ultimately Ruby developers end up being good developers because of the high power+low cognitive overhead style at the heart of the language.

Now for the cons:

- It is indeed becoming niche. Junior developers probably mostly not learning it. Are they really as productive as they could be on Rails though? I think NodeJs stuff are interesting, I wonder though how productive they actually are. Is the stuff they build really bug-free? Fully featured? Well tested? From my experience they are fast but will overlook obvious bugs in their code as if it was ok. I think the Ruby community had tons of good teachers who focused on elegant working code, RailsCasts, DestroyAllSoftware, etc. Also a lot of influential devs and ppl who learned from them & similar sources, a lot of them still participating or who done amazing contributions, like Aaron Patterson, Jose Valim, DHH.. I don't know how exactly we'll deal with this at the company, but our software is so flexible I think we wouldn't have much trouble breaking it up & integrating, at the same time too, though, our application code is so easy to work on I don't think it matters much if a new dev is not a rubyist.

In conclusion, I guess it depends where you want to go with your life, I myself have always thought of handling actual heavy duty shit with software, being in a core product team, not being a 'job market b*tch' etc. Even if I'm not writing Ruby one day because we have decided to switch to something other or that I want to work on a different project that is running X, I don't really care.

Re: Ask HN: Is Ruby on Rails still relevant?

#159
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Go monolith would be just as hard to maintain as an RoR monolith. This is not a shortcoming of the framework.

Nope, Go is more opinionated and was designed to work on large teams and codebases with junior engineers. It enforces best practices where Ruby just lets you shoot yourself in the foot

Ruby may not be opinionated but Rails is - convention over configuration is a core philosophy. It's one of the reasons it's so easy to get started with.
Post reply on HN