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

RubyLLM: A Ruby framework for all major AI providers

rubyllm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: RubyLLM: A Ruby framework for all major AI providers

#41

Post by realty_geek »

earcar wrote: post #4
mosselman wrote: post #2

It is quite nice, but not as nice as you'd want. You still have to set platform specifics when running completions when you want to tune things like temperature, effort, max tokens, etc.

RubyLLM author here. I'm not sure where you got that. `chat.with_temperature(0.2)` https://rubyllm.com/chat/#controlling-response-behavior `chat.with_thinking(effort: :high, budget: 8000)` https://rubyllm.com/thinking/#controlling-extended-thinking Max tokens is the only one of your list that require provider specific params: https://rubyllm.com/chat/#provider-specific-parameters I'm one guy doing it for free. Happy…

Well put!!!

You work your arse off for free and the guy who made the disparaging comment didn't even bother to research to see if he had the details right.

Hat's off to you Carmine for all your work. Many people really do appreciate it.

Re: RubyLLM: A Ruby framework for all major AI providers

#44

Post by lackoftactics »

MitziMoto wrote: post #35
notpachet wrote: post #22

Why would anyone still build in dynamically typed languages in 2026? Why relinquish the crystal clear signals that static typing is able to provide to the LLM?

You static typed evangelists have lost your damn minds. You seem to have completely misunderstood what this library even is because you have some primal urge to boast static typing at every chance. You can build high quality software with dynamically typed languages, and Ruby is an absolute dream to read and write.

Why do you think that follows?

I was on team dynamic typing for about 12 years, and Ruby was a big part of that. I still think dynamic languages can be wonderful to read and write.

But after using modern statically typed languages with good inference, I changed my mind. Many of my old objections were really objections to verbose type systems, not static typing itself. With inference, you can keep a lot of the readability while gaining safer refactoring, better tooling, and earlier feedback.

That doesn’t mean dynamic languages can’t produce high-quality software. They obviously can. But I don’t think appreciating modern static typing is just evangelism.

And yes, I understand what this library is about, it's for "beautiful" easy to use interface to AI providers for Ruby apps. It's the popular play nowadays with litellm, bifrost, gomodel and vercel gateway. We have at least couple AI gateways, libraries like that every week on HN.

Re: RubyLLM: A Ruby framework for all major AI providers

#45

Post by aaronbrethorst »

I'm building something that is only pointed at Claude, and I don't anticipate moving away from the Anthropic ecosystem. Does RubyLLM offer me an advantage over directly using Anthropic's Ruby SDK?

To put it differently, is this more like choosing between Fog and aws-sdk-s3, or choosing between Active Storage and aws-sdk-s3?

Re: RubyLLM: A Ruby framework for all major AI providers

#46

Post by lackoftactics »

cutler wrote: post #37
lackoftactics wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even as rails dev, I am seeing that you might be right. It’s really hard to find specific pros nowadays that Ruby brings to the table. All that talk about conventions over configurations and vast presence of Rails in weights is fun, but if writing speed isn’t an issue anymore, then Ruby on Rails has serious problems with larger codebases

Codebases like Stripe?

they introduced static typing (Sorbet) to avoid problems, it's completely different app and looks nowhere close to what you experience in standard Rails app

Re: RubyLLM: A Ruby framework for all major AI providers

#48

Post by piratebroadcast »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #45

I'm building something that is only pointed at Claude, and I don't anticipate moving away from the Anthropic ecosystem. Does RubyLLM offer me an advantage over directly using Anthropic's Ruby SDK? To put it differently, is this more like choosing between Fog and aws-sdk-s3, or choosing between Active Storage and aws-sdk-s3?

Why build it in such a way that there you're locked into one provider when you can just use this tool and have the ability to choose any provider in the future? I mean, even for fallbacks, like what if anthropic API is down that particular day when you need the service?

Re: RubyLLM: A Ruby framework for all major AI providers

#50

Post by fragkakis »

reg_dunlop wrote: post #40
fragkakis wrote: post #12

I have created an open source chatgpt clone with rubyllm, check it out here: https://www.railschat.org/

tried it and got this: > Error: You exceeded your current quota, please check your plan and billing details. For more information on this error, head to: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/rate-limits . To monitor your current usage, head to: https://ai.dev/rate-limit . * Quota exceeded for metric: generativelanguage.googleapis.com/generate_content_free_tier_requests, limit: 20, model: gemini-2.5-flash Please retr…

I have used a personal Gemini token for all users, which often exceeds quota. You can: 1. Check out the repo and use your own tokens 2. Use your own tokens in the browser, they are only held in the browser and are not being persisted or logged in the backend
Post reply on HN