The productivity and joy I get from working with this stack are immeasurable. I’ve been ruined in terms of having zero tolerance for the agony that comes with the JS ecosystem for example.
Why we still build with Ruby
11–20 of 94 posts
Re: Why we still build with Ruby
#12I don’t understand why Ruby and Rails get a reputation for being outdated or “legacy.” Over the last several years both have seen massive numbers of contributions, both in improvements and new features. I’d be surprised if any tool for building a new web app could even come close to what Rails has to offer across the full stack.
If rails is the best at making web apps, and other ecosystems in other languages maybe get you 90% of the way, might as well use something else and not deal with ruby sucking at other jobs.
Re: Why we still build with Ruby
#13And I feel like I’ve found that with Rails. In my free time I’ve recently chosen Rails to build apps for myself. I’m aware that there’s a productivity bias in new projects but so far everything I’ve needed my app to do has come out of the box with Rails (e.g. object storage). If you’ll pardon the pun, I feel like I have these guard rails that prevent me from going off on tangents and keep me focussed on the product.
And I’ve got the app hosted! This is a first for me and I’ve been a dev for 15 years. I feel like a lot of the complexity of web dev is tamed with this framework and that I’m on a very well trodden path.
Re: Why we still build with Ruby
#14I don’t understand why Ruby and Rails get a reputation for being outdated or “legacy.” Over the last several years both have seen massive numbers of contributions, both in improvements and new features. I’d be surprised if any tool for building a new web app could even come close to what Rails has to offer across the full stack.
Rails has bad spa suppott.
But Rails is hard to beat for CRUD apps.
Re: Why we still build with Ruby
#15I don’t understand why Ruby and Rails get a reputation for being outdated or “legacy.” Over the last several years both have seen massive numbers of contributions, both in improvements and new features. I’d be surprised if any tool for building a new web app could even come close to what Rails has to offer across the full stack.
For anything else you might use ruby for you can use python, so you might as well just use python. If rails is the best at making web apps, and other ecosystems in other languages maybe get you 90% of the way, might as well use something else and not deal with ruby sucking at other jobs.
Re: Why we still build with Ruby
#16> - Go powers services that need high I/O concurrency or long-lived network connections.
> - Rust handles CPU-bound jobs.
It's always amazed me than the discourse around dynamic vs. static languages is that you can't have both.
Like, dynamic languages are literally built on a foundation of static, compiled languages. Ruby's source is C and now some Rust.
So just build in Ruby and when you hit a bottleneck, rewrite that bottleneck in C or Rust...
Re: Why we still build with Ruby
#17I don’t understand why Ruby and Rails get a reputation for being outdated or “legacy.” Over the last several years both have seen massive numbers of contributions, both in improvements and new features. I’d be surprised if any tool for building a new web app could even come close to what Rails has to offer across the full stack.
Rails has bad spa suppott.
Re: Why we still build with Ruby
#18> - Rails handles our API, domain logic, and billing workflows. > - Go powers services that need high I/O concurrency or long-lived network connections. > - Rust handles CPU-bound jobs. It's always amazed me than the discourse around dynamic vs. static languages is that you can't have both. Like, dynamic languages are literally built on a foundation of static, compiled languages. Ruby's source is C and now some Rust.…
Re: Why we still build with Ruby
#19> - Rails handles our API, domain logic, and billing workflows. > - Go powers services that need high I/O concurrency or long-lived network connections. > - Rust handles CPU-bound jobs. It's always amazed me than the discourse around dynamic vs. static languages is that you can't have both. Like, dynamic languages are literally built on a foundation of static, compiled languages. Ruby's source is C and now some Rust.…
Many times with JIT you don't even need to drop to a more performant language. You can actually get some speed gains by moving C library code back to Ruby so you don't have to pay the translation costs
All the gains Ruby has made in the last few years are pretty incredible. I never picked it because of performance reasons but it's pretty nice that it's getting faster.
Either way though, Ruby FFI is super super easy. Just for fun, because of this thread, I spent a whole 2 minutes (lol) linking an Odin (my new low-level hobby language) library to Ruby. Literally all it took. Credit to Odin for having such easy export and Ruby for having such easy FFI.
Re: Why we still build with Ruby
#20And may be a glimpse of ZJIT? It is not just Ruby and Rails has gotten faster, CPU performance and core count has been getting cheaper.
One thing I forgot to post last time in the GitHub CEO step down thread. I am hoping Microsoft won't force GitHub to move away from Ruby Rails. I remember there were some noise early on during the acquisition M$ wanted to get rid of it.