Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Today I accept that Rails is yesterday’s software

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 166 posts

Re: Today I accept that Rails is yesterday’s software

#11

Post by vosper »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #3

The article seems to be lamenting three things: 1) Batteries-included web frameworks (like Rails and Django) 2) Interpreted languages without strict typing (like Ruby and Python) 3) Programmers relying on large numbers of dependencies (e.g. ruby gems), and the resulting difficulty in reasoning about the software The last paragraph then goes on to suggest that different languages are required. This seems wrong. If you…

> The problem comes when you rely on adding packages that just talk directly to your framework (like Django middleware). Once you do that a few times, you really don't know what's going on between a web request hitting your server, and your own code running

I think this is where the lack of strict typing can make things harder to figure out. Especially if you're trying to understand middleware functions with opaque signatures (like kwargs in Python). IDEs like PyCharm do their best at providing "Find all references", "Go to defintion" etc, and that helps, but it's not quite the same. Putting the info in the docstring is better than nothing, but it's still harder to parse (and maybe not machine parseable) and who knows if it's really correct?

Personally I'm really hoping mypy or type-hinting really takes off in Python 3, and makes everyone's life easier.

Re: Today I accept that Rails is yesterday’s software

#12

Post by askyourmother »

I remember early Rails, around 0.13, pre RC, the community was small the future seemed bright. Little did we know the horrors of what it would turn into. Most of the professional people left when they saw the security circus, the endless holes and design flaws.

I learnt then - avoid any web framework which has pragprog pushing a book behind it. The new one to avoid because the masses are already circling around it is 'phoenix', and sure enough, pragprog is hawking a book on it.

Re: Today I accept that Rails is yesterday’s software

#15

Post by collyw »

jmstickney wrote: post #7
cplanas wrote: post #4

I agree with some of the issues that the author points in Rails; but, at the same time, he is unable to name what is "today's software" using his words. Until then, I will stay with Rails. Until then. Moreover, the author seems to be imagining Rails as a huge monolithic piece of software. That does not need to be true.

Doesn't the author end by saying Swift, Rust and Go are "tomorrow's languages"?

Yet he gives absolutely no justification for why those are "tomorrows languages". You don't use third party libraries or frameworks in any of those languages?

Personally I design my Django code to be as simple as possible. I use third party libraries, and don't see too many of the problems he talks about.

Re: Today I accept that Rails is yesterday’s software

#16

Post by elcapitan »

vosper wrote: post #11
rahimnathwani wrote: post #3

The article seems to be lamenting three things: 1) Batteries-included web frameworks (like Rails and Django) 2) Interpreted languages without strict typing (like Ruby and Python) 3) Programmers relying on large numbers of dependencies (e.g. ruby gems), and the resulting difficulty in reasoning about the software The last paragraph then goes on to suggest that different languages are required. This seems wrong. If you…

> The problem comes when you rely on adding packages that just talk directly to your framework (like Django middleware). Once you do that a few times, you really don't know what's going on between a web request hitting your server, and your own code running I think this is where the lack of strict typing can make things harder to figure out. Especially if you're trying to understand middleware functions with opaque s…

But is that really a problem of non-strict typing, or rather a problem of metaprogramming? I could imagine even a very strongly typed system in Haskell or Scala would probably be hard for an IDE to support if it uses a lot of complex abstractions to create internal DSLs (like Rails and I guess Django as well do).

Re: Today I accept that Rails is yesterday’s software

#18

Post by icpmacdo »

I am thinking about completely stopping reading Hacker News. I enjoy the community a lot but every time I am learning something new I read about how its old and shitty and will cause hair loss when you try and invest any time in it. It puts the breaks on actually learning with the distraction of going and trying to find that new ambiguous stack that the author is hinting at.

Re: Today I accept that Rails is yesterday’s software

#20

Post by askyourmother »

icpmacdo wrote: post #18

I am thinking about completely stopping reading Hacker News. I enjoy the community a lot but every time I am learning something new I read about how its old and shitty and will cause hair loss when you try and invest any time in it. It puts the breaks on actually learning with the distraction of going and trying to find that new ambiguous stack that the author is hinting at.

If you learn a library, you will always be in the driving seat. If you learn a framework, well, better buckle up, because it is a bumpy ride.

Frameworks are like hamburgers at maccy ds - consumption for the masses, no thinking required. Later in life those decisions can be a problem.

Post reply on HN