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

Why we still build with Ruby

getlago.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: Why we still build with Ruby

#81

Post by dismalaf »

thewebguyd wrote: post #62
dismalaf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SPAs are one of those things that few apps truly need. And honestly, these days, if I thought I truly needed an SPA I'd probably just write it in a compiled language that spits out WASM. But Rails is hard to beat for CRUD apps.

> But Rails is hard to beat for CRUD apps. I'm honestly surprised it didn't take off massively for internal enterprise CRUD stuff. It's by far the most productive stack I've ever used, the second closest being .NET w/ EntityFramework. It was the darling of the early SaaS explosion of the early 2000s, and then just kind of died off in hype. I like that it's opinionated, stops be from going down rabbit holes, and batte…

It's difficult for enterprise to bet against C# or Java and I kind of get it. Following the crowd is a form of hedging your own career, if things go south you won't get fired for it, but if you bet on an obscure language and framework with no support you will.

Re: Why we still build with Ruby

#82

Post by JSR_FDED »

cloverich wrote: post #73
JSR_FDED wrote: post #58

Some questions for those with RoR experience… 1. If you know Python, Lua, JS and C, how hard would it be to learn Ruby? 2. What’s the best way to learn Ruby and Rails today? 3. How important is it that you know the previous versions of Rails? I remember looking for some resources a while ago and got a sense that there’s a lot of history that you need to know to really grok the latest version of Rails. 4. I’m worried…

It's not hard to learn just takes time. Easiest route is to find a job that wants experienced programmers but doesn't care if you have rails experience, there's plenty. Second best route is to just build something with it. For context, personally I hate it 3.5 years in, but I can see why people like it. I would learn it because you have colleagues that use it, or there's companies you like that require it. Most peopl…

Food for thought, thanks!

Re: Why we still build with Ruby

#83

Post by JSR_FDED »

Shank wrote: post #60
JSR_FDED wrote: post #58

Some questions for those with RoR experience… 1. If you know Python, Lua, JS and C, how hard would it be to learn Ruby? 2. What’s the best way to learn Ruby and Rails today? 3. How important is it that you know the previous versions of Rails? I remember looking for some resources a while ago and got a sense that there’s a lot of history that you need to know to really grok the latest version of Rails. 4. I’m worried…

1. Your subjective experience learning a new language is going to be up to you and how many languages you know. Ruby feels great from Java and C# to me, but maybe it won't for you. 2. The Rails guides (official) are great to learn the framework. 3. It's only relevant to learn the older versions of the framework if you're going to a company on the older versions. Realistically, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are all very similar and…

Appreciate the info, thanks.

Re: Why we still build with Ruby

#84

Post by Lumping6371 »

And what's Ruby's maintainability like? As in, once the project gets inherited by a new dev, or your reach a larger than a couple of devs scale?

Not being ironic, genuinely curious. My only parallel is JavaScript and that becomes a pain in the ass quick due to the small bugs that go unnoticed, even working as a lone dev. TypeScript catches a great deal of those and you can get by with less testing and a more readable (imo) codebase, so a win-win for me.

Re: Why we still build with Ruby

#85

Post by Alifatisk »

dismalaf wrote: post #79
Alifatisk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I spent a whole 2 minutes (lol) linking an Odin (my new low-level hobby language) library to Ruby. Would you mind creating a gist of your steps?

Odin code: package main import "core:fmt" @export sayhi :: proc() { fmt.println("Hello World") } Key is the "@export" statement. Then build Linux dynamic library by doing "odin build main.odin -file -build-mode:shared". -file flag is since I'm just building a single Odin file, didn't set up a project structure or anything. -build-mode:shared is pretty obvious, there's separate build mode flags for Windows or Mac plat…

Thank you so much, that was way easier than what I expected, amazing!

Re: Why we still build with Ruby

#86

Post by mrits »

mdaniel wrote: post #61
mrits wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a new 80/20 rule. I propose a 90/0. You get 90% done quickly and the other 0% over the next few years .

We actually already have one of those, and it still fits just for a different reason: > The first 90% is easy/fast/cheap, it's the second 90% that's hard/slow/expensive Since most of the generative approaches treat code as disposable, then the second (and subsequent) 90% approaches just throw it away and start over. It's like all the awesome parts about a rewrite, with all the awesome parts about "it was rewritten be…

Ha! I've never heard of that one

Re: Why we still build with Ruby

#87

Post by librasteve »

myaccountonhn wrote: post #53
vindin wrote: post #2

I 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.

I've been toying with Perl+CGI-scripts lately and find its super productive with the benefit that I can do serverless without the lock-in. I don't think the software engineering field is particularly rational and mostly follows trends or what looks good or familiar. We have a proclivity to assume that anything old is legacy. Most developer have never studied any CS history and are quite young, so they're bound to rei…

if you like perl+CGI, then i suggest you take a look at https://harcstack.org

Re: Why we still build with Ruby

#88

Post by Pxtl »

delfinom wrote: post #54
andrei_says_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…In keeping lots of people employed. All that extra complexity is great for the economy.

God, I had to deal with a junior we hired that wanted and attempt to SPA all the forms on a intranet application form. I struggled to explain I would now have to spend 4 hours updating dependencies, maintaining a node js pipeline and dealing with typescript all because you couldn't handle adding a new fucking single form input to a form with only 3 existing inputs, which would have taken only 3 lines of code between…

That shouldn't even be web application you should have some kind of off-the-shelf CMS already in use that you can rely on for forms like that.

Re: Why we still build with Ruby

#89

Post by chistev »

birdfood wrote: post #13

I work with python and typescript (occasionally c++) for my day job. I love getting to ship complete vertical slices of functionality. But I’m tired of all the faffing about. I’m sick of reinventing wheels and integrating with paid services that should be part of a frame work (e.g. auth). And writing the same types 3 times (pydantic, orm, front end)… I just want to focus on my product’s raison d'etre. And I feel like…

Django too.!! Haha

Re: Why we still build with Ruby

#90

Post by birdfood »

chistev wrote: post #89
birdfood wrote: post #13

I work with python and typescript (occasionally c++) for my day job. I love getting to ship complete vertical slices of functionality. But I’m tired of all the faffing about. I’m sick of reinventing wheels and integrating with paid services that should be part of a frame work (e.g. auth). And writing the same types 3 times (pydantic, orm, front end)… I just want to focus on my product’s raison d'etre. And I feel like…

Django too.!! Haha

I considered Django pretty seriously and worked through most of the excellent Mozilla tutorial.

I prefer Django's having models defined in code and being able to generate views and migrations based off these. The auth situation seems more robust.

Obviously there's direct benefit to me with working with a familiar language.

The decision to give Rails a go instead really game down to me trying to minimise how many pieces I need to tape together. And with Django it seems I'd need to sort out my own frontend story and build my own deployment process. Rails has defaults for both of these now. I'm fully prepared I might decide to rebuild with Django in the future, but right now Rails is working.

Post reply on HN