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

Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 248 posts

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#51

Post by berkes »

yawboakye wrote: post #28
berkes wrote: post #17

> if you open up any Rails application, it looks basically the same in structure whether it is the biggest Rails app there is or a new one. I used to love this, untill I started to hate it. I am convinced this is a major contributor to why so many Rails apps turn into an unmaintainable mess over years. Who measures onboarding in hours? It's fine if it takes a day or two to understand the domain. And the framework. An…

i’m preparing a talk for either railsconf or railsworld that puts this question/concern to the community. two times i have deviated from the standard apps/{models,controllers,views} layout and i have profited massively, especially in terms of conceptual integrity and abstraction. all my code lives in app/lib under domain-specific directories. this includes the models. the only part worth separating is the web router…

I've had the pleasure to work on such kinds of Rails apps a few times. It was almost magical, compared to all the other common Rails apps with their ever accumulating fat models, complex controllers, untestable- coupled classes and so on.

One had this what you describe: everything in /lib, and the MVC merely delegating to that. MVC downgraded to what it should be: plumbing that binds together your domain stuff.

The other did something similar but had it in gems (bound as Railties/engines). IT was a bit more cumbersome, as one had to release a new gem before being able to integrate it in the rails app. It forced a very solid separation of concerns.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#52

Post by swlkr »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #35
lagniappe wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I probably won't use it again in any projects, but I liked the video because of nostalgia. Rails is a memory of a fun and scrappier me, a different time, appropriate in its own light for my path at the time.

After doing lots of Node and Go I've recently come back to Rails and, no joke, it's about 5x faster in development for me. So many niceties. Using Prisma I had a 25 line method (and no real models) and that went down to 3 lines in Rails. It's just a night and day difference. I won't leave Rails again.

Rails really is the premiere framework for web development speed

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#53

Post by jupp0r »

larksimian wrote: post #30
berkes wrote: post #17

> if you open up any Rails application, it looks basically the same in structure whether it is the biggest Rails app there is or a new one. I used to love this, untill I started to hate it. I am convinced this is a major contributor to why so many Rails apps turn into an unmaintainable mess over years. Who measures onboarding in hours? It's fine if it takes a day or two to understand the domain. And the framework. An…

You're building CRUD apps. The conventions work and are extensible for teams of 1, 10, 100 and 1000s. You are not special and neither is your product. Companies making millions or billions of dollars have used this framework successfully. This level of bike-shedding is what makes conventions necessary especially when dealing with the typical hyper-pedantic software developer. Just the thought of having to debate wher…

Your model of companies using Rails with 1000s of engineers is almost comically naive. Look at what Shopify and Github have to do to make Rails work for them. Also look at the non Ruby code engineers there are writing and ask yourself why they might be doing it. Rails is not a religion. It can be good at what it does without having to go on a crusade when people point out its substantial limitations.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#54

Post by magicmicah85 »

Going to have to watch this later today. I've messed with so many frameworks in the past - Laravel, ExpressJS, MeteorJS, Django, Flask, etc. All of them have their benefits and drawbacks and I've been at different knowledge levels when I've tried them all but I've always tried tutorials, done my own thing and given up.

Three days ago I started using rails and I just flew through the weekend to get a MVP setup to show a coworker. Rails just made it easy to focus on what my app needs to do, not how my app needs to be implemented. I can finally see why people love it so much.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#56

Post by riffraff »

Towaway69 wrote: post #12
brap wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if you open up any Rails application, it looks basically the same in structure whether it is the biggest Rails app there is or a new one I've never worked with Rails, but this sounds amazing. One of the things I really hate about the Node.js ecosystem is that there are no clear conventions, the structure is always different even when the same framework is used. It's a mess. The exception is probably Next.js but it's…

True, nodejs really doesn't have _the_ framework. Python had flask, php is WordPress and RoR. Why is that? Especially since most of the new frameworks copy the ideas of existing frameworks. P.S. Perhaps because a JS framework based off the ideas of rails would be called jails! /s

Wouldn't python's _the framework_ be Django?

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#57

Post by MatthiasPortzel »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #11

One of my biggest mistakes as a dev was not really learning Rails until 2015. I just didn’t know how much faster building web apps could be.

Same. I spent so long building Django apps and trying to solve problems that StackOverflow told me were inherently difficult, only to find out that Rails has built-in solutions.

This isn’t even a criticism of Django; the things that Django does, it does very well. But there are a lot of things that it doesn’t do that a mature web app will eventually need to handle.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#58

Post by AlchemistCamp »

jupp0r wrote: post #45
claudiug wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and gitlab, github :)

These two have lots of backend code that's not Ruby. Rails is great at what it does and it's not optimal for many other use cases.

I'm sure things have changed post-acquisition, but for a very long time Github's back-end languages were just Ruby and C.
Post reply on HN