We fell out of love with Next.js and back in love with Ruby on Rails

Post by baq » Sun, May 04, 2025, 9:24 AM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #235

baq wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your axiom is ‘JS is fine’ then yeah. It isn’t, though. TS is much closer to ‘fine’, but still can’t avoid some dumb JS decisions.

I've been a professional programmer for ~20 years and worked in a variety of languages on a variety of different types of projects, and Typescript with Bun is mostly just fine. It lacks some low level primitives I'd like to have available for certain projects (e.g. Go channels), and the FFI interface isn't as nice as I'd like, but it's basically serviceable for for a very broad range of problems. You should still kno…

Post by dminik » Sun, May 04, 2025, 9:28 AM UTC

spenczar5 wrote: post #71

quantadev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the confession that "Figma‑ or Gmail‑class apps still benefit from heavy client logic" is a telling one, and the reason I politely disagree with your thinking is that it relies in the app staying small forever. But that's not what happens. Apps grow and grow and grow. I've heard people say they just want "Pure JS" with no frameworks at all because frameworks are too complex, for their [currently] small app. S…

Yeah, wouldn't want to rewrite the frontend in a new framework. Good thing the SPA frameworks are so stable and solid; when I choose one I will surely be able to use it for a good, oh, 3 to 6 months.

Post by ivan_gammel » Sun, May 04, 2025, 9:49 AM UTC

jjani wrote: post #328

ivan_gammel wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People outside tech just get installation instructions and do not care if it’s app store or something else. This is how sanctioned Russian banks continue to serve their customers via apps, when they cannot get into app store. The number of users of PWA is probably on the scale of millions.

I had no idea! Cool to learn. It definitely makes complete sense in that scenario, but remains a very niche usecase where people have no other option. >People outside tech just get installation instructions People outside of tech don't need instructions to install non-PWA, store apps. So all this does to me is reinforce that no one is installing PWAs outside of niche scenarios where 1. people basically have to use th…

Post by cpursley » Sun, May 04, 2025, 10:23 AM UTC

vishalontheline wrote: post #286

freedomben wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We currently have two major apps, One in typescript and one in rails. I have to hire devs for both, and I have not experienced it being any more difficult to find a rails developer or a node/typescript developer. If anything, I think finding a rails developer with relevant experience is even easier because the stack is so much more standardized. With people with node experience, there is a huge chance that they won't…

I really hope that Elixir / Phoenix will gain more traction. It is very easy to write a server with it, hosting and deploying is painless, upgrading it (so far) has been painless, linting and debugging has been a breeze. If you're coming from Ruby, then learning Elixir requires a small mental adjustment (from Object Oriented to Functional). Once you get over that hump, programming in Elixir is just as much fun as Rub…

Post by Rhainur » Sun, May 04, 2025, 10:29 AM UTC

snkzxbs wrote: post #191

qq99 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest downfall in my experience has been it can be a massive pain to find out where a method is defined in a huge codebase, especially with all the crazy ways in which one can declare methods. You can spend a non-trivial amount of time just trying to find the definition for a method.

Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question but - is there no "Go to definition" command in an IDE that can help with something like this? I mean, I understand that there is, but it doesn't work well with Ruby. Why?

  class Customer
    ROLES = ["superadmin", "admin", "user"]

    ROLES.each do |role|
      define_method("is_#{role}?") do
        roles.include?(role)
      end
    end
  end

  class Customer
    ROLES = ["superadmin", "admin", "user"]

    def method_missing(method_name, *args)
      if method_name.to_s =~ /^is_(\w+)\?$/ && ROLES.include?($1)
        roles.include?($1)
      else
        super
      end
    end
  end