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

“Start Rails 5 development”

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: “Start Rails 5 development”

#31

Post by mattmanser »

tinco wrote: post #27
digitalzombie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been doing web dev for 6 years, full stack, back and front, mostly somewhere in the middle and front end. From what I've seen, backend rendering ain't going no where. This SPA trends is still wild west. Angular 1 is kind slowing down imo cause of the drastic changes in Angular 2. Ember is bloat. The javascript eco system is meh right now. NodeJS people probably will argue against this. But seriously, javascript…

Not to one-up you, just since apparently it's worth mentioning, I've been doing webdev for about 9 years, and at least from my perspective backend rendering is definitely going out the window. I started as a Rails dev in 2008, did ASP.Net before that, and last year I've moved from Rails to a pimped up Grape, which is a framework suited more for developing API's. Maybe it's just the sort of apps I'm building (basicall…

Bind everything to window is the same as "put everything in global".

It simply is not a long term viable strategy, we've been there, we've done that, it does not work. Perhaps that's not what you mean.

Also plain javascript doesn't have observables in most browsers, and any SPA without an observable system can only reach a certain level of complexity.

TBH, what you write is still so far from reality, that plain javascript is enough, that I am a little hesitant to take your comment seriously.

Re: “Start Rails 5 development”

#32

Post by tinco »

mattmanser wrote: post #31
tinco wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to one-up you, just since apparently it's worth mentioning, I've been doing webdev for about 9 years, and at least from my perspective backend rendering is definitely going out the window. I started as a Rails dev in 2008, did ASP.Net before that, and last year I've moved from Rails to a pimped up Grape, which is a framework suited more for developing API's. Maybe it's just the sort of apps I'm building (basicall…

Bind everything to window is the same as "put everything in global". It simply is not a long term viable strategy, we've been there, we've done that, it does not work. Perhaps that's not what you mean. Also plain javascript doesn't have observables in most browsers, and any SPA without an observable system can only reach a certain level of complexity. TBH, what you write is still so far from reality, that plain javas…

To be fair, I live a bit in the future. I build apps for tech people who are running up to date browsers, and that don't face the consuming billions. On top of that, Polymer polyfills webcomponents and two-way databinding of templates.

Perhaps my apps haven't gotten big enough to see this binding in global thing fail, but I'm not sure how it would ever. You properly namespace everything right?

Re: “Start Rails 5 development”

#33

Post by diminish »

bherms wrote: post #2

Is there a good summary of the main goals of taking Rails from 4 to 5?

> Rails 5.0 is in most likelihood going to target Ruby 2.2. There's a bunch of optimizations coming in Ruby 2.2 that are going to be very nice, but most importantly for Rails, symbols are going to be garbage collected.

I'm looking forward for Rails 5 and Ruby 2.2 and the expected performance improvements.

Re: “Start Rails 5 development”

#34

Post by jaredklewis »

echoless wrote: post #12
aikah wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps there will still be a large demand for sites that aren't SPA applications. Interesting times. It's isnt perhaps,99% of websites outthere arent SPAs.I'm pretty sure a majority of website you visit arent either. > I'm curious about the fate of Rails(and other frameworks like Django) in a few years, seeing that many web applications are moving to the Single-Page-Application model and the server simply acts as…

> It's isnt perhaps,99% of websites outthere arent SPAs.I'm pretty sure a majority of website you visit arent either. Currently 99% of websites are not SPAs, but I think a lot of sites will switch to SPAs in the future, since they offer a better UX(no full reloads, more interactivity etc) in most cases. I'm sure customers will demand these sort of sites once they start using more SPAs. > Why would you need a differen…

> Currently 99% of websites are not SPAs, but I think a lot of sites will switch to SPAs in the future, since they offer a better UX(no full reloads, more interactivity etc) in most cases. I'm sure customers will demand these sort of sites once they start using more SPAs.

I can see highly interactive sites switching, but most sites are not highly interactive and would have no reason to switch to an SPA. For any content (as opposed to interaction) heavy site, like a blog, I can't see any advantage of an SPA. Server rendered pages can be cached and served lightning fast. For an SPA, in addition to the time to transfer the page content and assets (which is required for both server and SPA apps), they have to load a JS framework and then render the page browser side. This will cause slower load times, so I don't see many sites choosing this trade off unless they are highly interactive.

Re: “Start Rails 5 development”

#35

Post by [deleted] »

echoless wrote: post #7

I'm curious about the fate of Rails(and other frameworks like Django) in a few years, seeing that many web applications are moving to the Single-Page-Application model and the server simply acts as a rest backend. Perhaps there will still be a large demand for sites that aren't SPA applications. Interesting times.

[deleted]

Re: “Start Rails 5 development”

#36

Post by mratzloff »

dgregd wrote: post #28
dgregd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ruby on Rails is still the most productive why to build web apps. Turbolinks prolonged Rails life cycle, as the best web framework, by two or three years. However SPA are the future. Maybe Angular 2 will be good enough to switch. Maybe something build after Angular 2.

Would you please explain why my comment have been down-voted?

Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: “Start Rails 5 development”

#37

Post by mratzloff »

echoless wrote: post #7

I'm curious about the fate of Rails(and other frameworks like Django) in a few years, seeing that many web applications are moving to the Single-Page-Application model and the server simply acts as a rest backend. Perhaps there will still be a large demand for sites that aren't SPA applications. Interesting times.

For over a decade I've heard that SPA and server-side JavaScript is the future. I always believed JavaScript would carve out a place on the server side, but I've always been skeptical about SPA given the often terrible UX and SEO. And besides that, most sites are better off being served statically from a cache.

tl;dr Wake me up when even 5% of sites are SPA.

Re: “Start Rails 5 development”

#38

Post by [deleted] »

echoless wrote: post #7

I'm curious about the fate of Rails(and other frameworks like Django) in a few years, seeing that many web applications are moving to the Single-Page-Application model and the server simply acts as a rest backend. Perhaps there will still be a large demand for sites that aren't SPA applications. Interesting times.

[deleted]

Re: “Start Rails 5 development”

#40

Post by bshimmin »

mratzloff wrote: post #37
echoless wrote: post #7

I'm curious about the fate of Rails(and other frameworks like Django) in a few years, seeing that many web applications are moving to the Single-Page-Application model and the server simply acts as a rest backend. Perhaps there will still be a large demand for sites that aren't SPA applications. Interesting times.

For over a decade I've heard that SPA and server-side JavaScript is the future. I always believed JavaScript would carve out a place on the server side, but I've always been skeptical about SPA given the often terrible UX and SEO. And besides that, most sites are better off being served statically from a cache. tl;dr Wake me up when even 5% of sites are SPA.

Where on earth were you hearing about SPAs and server-side JavaScript in 2004? Was "SPA" even a term before about 2010?
Post reply on HN