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

Replacing Ruby on Rails: Let's Go

madebymany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: Replacing Ruby on Rails: Let's Go

#41

Post by cheald »

nine_k wrote: post #36
vec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're going to see a serious competitor to Wordpress in anything but PHP for a long time. The core target audience for a CMS is content creators and designers without strong compsci backgrounds. The things that make it hackable (trivial to modify in-place, extremely forgiving of type errors, no internal sandboxing, etc.) are the very things that make it attractive to non-developers. Nothing is going to…

The beauty (which can also be seen as a disadvantage) is that writing Go does not exactly require comp sci skills. I suspect that Go is even simpler than modern PHP as a language. You can of course go full comp sci implementing clever algorithms in Go, but you could do that in PHP, too, and none of content creators is usually interested in this.

Go requires knowledge of types, which already puts its cognitive complexity ahead of PHP for the typical content creator.

Re: Replacing Ruby on Rails: Let's Go

#42

Post by eranation »

If you come from RoR, Go is the last language/ecosystem I would think of. Elixir, Scala/Play seems to me so much more naturally fitting the Rails paradigm and the Ruby language flexibility. Go is so much different, it's not replacing Ruby on Rails, it's replacing your programming style and philosophy completely.

Re: Replacing Ruby on Rails: Let's Go

#43

Post by 147 »

tptacek wrote: post #14

I've had nothing but bad experiences trying to do things I'd ordinarily do in Rails in Golang instead (and I really like Golang). Writing "Rails apps" in Golang feels a like like writing them in Sinatra used to feel: good at first, but halfway through you realize you're just wasting time reimplementing a buggier version of half of Rails. On the other hand, I've had very good experiences factoring subsets of Rails app…

Same stack for Starfighter?

Re: Replacing Ruby on Rails: Let's Go

#46

Post by jfroma »

BringTheTanks wrote: post #17

Odd. RoR and Go address entirely different app domains. The only thing that connects them is that RoR was trendy yesterday, and Go is trendy today. If this is the rationale for replacement, the author will be writing plenty of "replacing" articles in the years forward.

Yes, and I remember how a lot of .Net people moved from .Net to ruby because of the type system. Now you are going to move to an inferior type system that doesn't even support generics and with worse type inference.

Re: Replacing Ruby on Rails: Let's Go

#47

Post by billsix »

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #34
colbyh wrote: post #2

I like Ruby/Rails, I like Go. I like frameworks that make your life easier when starting a new project. I don't think Go is anywhere near the list of languages to build a Rails successor on top of. Rails can do so much of the cool stuff it does because Ruby is an incredibly flexible language. Go, on the other hand, could be described as "inflexible as a feature". You have a beautifully simple language that optimizes…

The idea that programming languages are "worlds apart" and "vastly different" is hyperbole that would make Turing frown or maybe giggle. Have you considered that Ruby is written in C [0], and that you can do plenty of things with a general purpose programming language and some good ideas? Edit: Would you care to substantively explain the downvote(s)? The parent is so preoccupied with frameworks he's overlooking the b…

A car salesman matched a competitors price, and rounded down two dollars. He told me he is offering me a better price than the competitor. I said, "it is true you are beating their price, but not in a way that matters to me".

Different languages have tradeoffs which matter to people.

Re: Replacing Ruby on Rails: Let's Go

#48

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe »

whateveracct wrote: post #45

Go seems like a terrible choice for any programming problem that requires data modeling/manipulation. Basic structs, slices+maps, and loops are all you have. Go is good at plenty of things, but building abstractions is not one of them.

Sorry, I'm not from around here I guess. What do you mean? Have you seen etcd https://github.com/coreos/etcd or sync.pool?

Re: Replacing Ruby on Rails: Let's Go

#49

Post by wukerplank »

When talking about Rails, you can't take Ruby out of the equation. To me, the joy of coding Ruby is unmatched by any other language. And it does have a very mature ecosystem.

Ruby and Go are both awesome, I could write you a love letter about both of them. But in my mind they have way too different use cases and coding styles to be brought up in the same sentence.

Re: Replacing Ruby on Rails: Let's Go

#50

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe »

billsix wrote: post #47
0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that programming languages are "worlds apart" and "vastly different" is hyperbole that would make Turing frown or maybe giggle. Have you considered that Ruby is written in C [0], and that you can do plenty of things with a general purpose programming language and some good ideas? Edit: Would you care to substantively explain the downvote(s)? The parent is so preoccupied with frameworks he's overlooking the b…

A car salesman matched a competitors price, and rounded down two dollars. He told me he is offering me a better price than the competitor. I said, "it is true you are beating their price, but not in a way that matters to me". Different languages have tradeoffs which matter to people.

Different people conflate languages and frameworks to their detriment.
Post reply on HN