Are there similar projects for other languages?
Matestack: Rapidly create interactive UIs in Ruby
31–40 of 42 posts
Re: Matestack: Rapidly create interactive UIs in Ruby
#32An API backend + UI front-end consuming it is the perfect solution, it is the only sane thing I ever came across. Stop trying so hard to shoehorn old bullshit over it. It took us decades to settle on this, please leave it be and focus on more pressing issues. World hunger or something.
It is completely unclear to me whether you are agreeing what Matestack does or not. It could be read as: "Yes exactly, this is what we need, not this other tech." or "What you have built is nonsense, please spend your time differently" Also, it is completely unclear to me what 'old bullshit' is in your story. Is an API backend with UI front-end old or new? It could be read as that or as "API backend with JS front-end…
Maybe a more tactful restatement:
This looks and feels a whole lot like what the Rails community was doing a decade ago with interpolated server-side values into ERB templates that contained script tags of jQuery. It seems like an old pattern that fell out of favor for good reasons (lack of fine grained control over the final rendered page's design and performance, still needing competencies in the front end tools when things don't work ideally, update and migration path difficulties for the front end, performance and caching issues, etc). I would personally not use Matestack as it seems like it has all the same pitfalls.
Re: Matestack: Rapidly create interactive UIs in Ruby
#33I don't really understand what are they fixing here. They point that current web development has shifted to "REST backend" and "SPA frontend", which (according to them) is not a good thing (why?). Their solution is to make you write (again) a "full" MVC-backend that also serves the UI (frontend), and additionally, extend it with another frontend layer (Vue). IMHO that is not fixing the initial problem they are statin…
If I'm not wrong you're assuming that the REST backend is written in JavaScript. This is not always the case. I personally saw that happen only once. All the other times the backend was either Java, Ruby, Python, Elixir.
What's risky is that a few people will know this technology. Far more know React, Angular, Vue. On the other side the same person writing the backend can write the frontend, assuming knowledge of HTML and CSS. So one project, not two. Probably cheaper.
Re: Matestack: Rapidly create interactive UIs in Ruby
#34Core contributor here: Happy we made it to HN, maybe a notch too early :) Right now there's only two not very supporting comments here. Glad the authors have solutions that work for them, but Rest + SPA is overly complicated for most small/mid sized projects in our opion. Everyone else: Feel free to join our Gitter if you like what you see!
This looks very cool! I noticed some typos on the home page that should be corrected:
> Beeing a small dev team
> suffer less cognetive load
Re: Matestack: Rapidly create interactive UIs in Ruby
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wish Flutter wasn't tied to Dart. Dart feels like a yet-another language with nothing over e.g. Go. Go can compile to JS and WASM now.
Doesn't Dart have generics and a lot of other language features that Go chose to omit?
Trouble is its yet another language to learn.
Flutter should have just done the cross platform UI part and offered APIs in a number of languages.
Re: Matestack: Rapidly create interactive UIs in Ruby
#36Interesting project... What's the biggest downside you can think of by adopting this approach? all projects have to have downsides as well as benefits... what's the trade-off here
Re: Matestack: Rapidly create interactive UIs in Ruby
#37I like this trend of moving back toward component based architecture. This has many similarities to Flutter, which for me has been a major breath of fresh air. What still gets me: HTML/CSS/JS honestly just sucks for building complex apps. We have shoehorned tools that were meant for simple document display into doing our bidding, but at what cost? Hours and hours of developer agony. It doesn't need to be this hard. I…
You find “hours and hours of developer agony” everywhere. Between TypeScript, React, and styled components, I’ve come to find it extremely enjoyable to build interesting and complex things for the browser. A few years ago, I’d have agreed with you we’ve been using the wrong tools. More and more, I feel like we’re finally seeing tools that help the job be creative and enjoyable instead of a frustrating, uphill battle.
Re: Matestack: Rapidly create interactive UIs in Ruby
#38I like this trend of moving back toward component based architecture. This has many similarities to Flutter, which for me has been a major breath of fresh air. What still gets me: HTML/CSS/JS honestly just sucks for building complex apps. We have shoehorned tools that were meant for simple document display into doing our bidding, but at what cost? Hours and hours of developer agony. It doesn't need to be this hard. I…
>I like looking at one file written in one language to see both the look and behavior of an app
Isn't this the basis for the prediction that every app that can be written in JavaScript will eventually be rewritten in JavaScript.
Re: Matestack: Rapidly create interactive UIs in Ruby
#39I like this trend of moving back toward component based architecture. This has many similarities to Flutter, which for me has been a major breath of fresh air. What still gets me: HTML/CSS/JS honestly just sucks for building complex apps. We have shoehorned tools that were meant for simple document display into doing our bidding, but at what cost? Hours and hours of developer agony. It doesn't need to be this hard. I…
I really wish Flutter wasn't tied to Dart. Dart feels like a yet-another language with nothing over e.g. Go. Go can compile to JS and WASM now.
Would Flutter be where it is today without hotreload? Hotreload was a suggestion form the Dart team, Flutter team tried it and where amazed.
Re: Matestack: Rapidly create interactive UIs in Ruby
#40Reminds me of the components talk at RailsConf https://railsconf.com/program/sessions#session-810