Rails isn't the fastest or the smartest framework. It has weird choices, confusing aspects and some downright terrible defaults, but for me at least, it is the best framework and it has been for years for one simple reason: DOCUMENTATION! Every few years or so, a bunch of these articles come out shouting from the roof tops, "Rails is dead!" and "Long live Rails!" They often like to praise some new framework, like Han…
Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
131–140 of 213 posts
Re: Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
#132Re: Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
#133My advice: if you have skin in this game and need to make real decisions about what platform/language you use, find an article that reasons soundly about what the questions are and convinces you of its answers. Don't listen to this one. And if this quality of thinking is diagnostic of how Ruby/Rails developers think generally... well I'm glad that's a game my skin is safe from.
Re: Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
FTFY: "I don't understand why those who spend most of their time __using tools__ focus so much on the tools they use to do it." It should be more self-evident now. When there are many tools which meet the minimum requirements for doing a job, then the focus becomes not on which tool can do the job, but which tool you feel does the job the best (or you enjoy using). Carpenters argue about the best saws/drills, artists…
"Carpenters argue about the best saws/drills, artists argue about the best brushes/paints, musicians argue about the best instrument maker." Is that actually true? I can't think of a single example of such an argument. I have heard recommendations, and heard various trendy tools being promoted (at least for music), but never an argument. I think it has to do with transferability of skill. In music, carpentry, and pai…
Re: Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
#135This is the real elephant in the room. Everyone is looking for the "next Rails." There will be no "next Rails" because the web is not what it was when Rails came out. It's not "dead" or "dying," but it is just not the same.
> Experienced people often forget the learning curve when they were themselves beginners, and at that time Rails was so attractive, so sexy.
I always like to say Rails is for those kids who used to read the players' guides and instruction manuals for video games first, so they know all the secret moves and bonus areas before they even start playing.
Some people prefer the challenge and power of discovering and designing things on their own, and they are never going to enjoy Rails because they'll be too caught up negotiating with themselves about how they would have done it.
Re: Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
.NET is alive and well. Enterprise only cares about Java and .NET as standard backend stacks, regardless of the technology of the day HN posts how everyone is doing Go and node.js.
i actually have been interested in Java because apache has open sourced what seems to be the best collection of resources on the internet and they are almost entirely written in java for the java ecosystem. I also think I would learn a massive amount. I also am strongly considering Java and less strongly C. What are your thoughts on Java in terms of: * How much it would teach me about programming/software design, e.g…
Great thing about Java is that it lets you solve wide variety of problems, right from Mobile, to Desktop to Big Data. For Machine Learning, Image Processing, some of the best libraries and SDKs are available in Java.
It's a good skill to know which I recommend to all new programmers. One important thing I like about Java is that it's low on features and it's possible to master almost all aspects of the language in relatively short period. This is not possibles with languages like C++, C# and Swift. I think simplicity is one of the reason Java and Go are popular.
Re: Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
#137I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but the ASP.NET MVC/IDE is a better ecosystem than Rails now. No more missing bundle x, install devkit x,....just install visual studio 15 and get to work.
As long as you agree with the choices Microsoft makes. If you have a different opinion? Too bad.
Re: Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
#138Re: Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
#139There was an essay pg wrote where he said that Microsoft was Dead (http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html). He didn’t mean dead as in “Dead," he meant dead as in “Nobody is afraid of them any more,” and the generalization of that is that it was no longer relevant.
I think Rails is there. I think Rails is dead. Obviously, not dead as in dead, but dead as in, it is no longer revolutionizing anything. It is no longer making new things possible. People no longer adopt it and discover a productivity dividend they didn’t expect. It no longer swings business decisions (“How can we get this done in three months? What about using Rails? Let’s try it.”)
I think that’s fine. I can quote “A new perspective is worth 80 points of IQ.” I don’t think that’s true of Rails today, but then again, I don’t think that’s what people want from Rails. If people want 80 points of IQ, they’re off looking at Elixir and Phoenix.
Likewise, I can say that “A language that doesn’t change the way you think about programming isn’t worth learning,” but who is learning Ruby and Rails in order to change the way they think about programming? They’re trying to bang out CRUD apps, and they don’t want to think about programming, that’s why they value a stable community with widely adopted “best practices.”
When you have a stable, mature language and framework, you spend more time thinking about your business and less time thinking about programming.
And thus, Rails (and sorry, but Ruby too) is not for people who want 80 points of IQ or to change the way they think about programming. And thus, in the sense of being influential, in the sense of disrupting anything or changing anything Rails is dead.
It has matured. It is mainstream. It is plumbing, it is concrete, it is rebar, it is infrastructure. Necessary and useful. But not something you want to spend a lot of time thinking about, just something you use if it suits your purposes.
Re: Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
#140Rails isn't the fastest or the smartest framework. It has weird choices, confusing aspects and some downright terrible defaults, but for me at least, it is the best framework and it has been for years for one simple reason: DOCUMENTATION! Every few years or so, a bunch of these articles come out shouting from the roof tops, "Rails is dead!" and "Long live Rails!" They often like to praise some new framework, like Han…
My experience with earlier versions was that you kinda had to piece it together yourself. Learning Play Framework was 10X easier for me since the docs were already there: https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.5.x/Home
So I think maybe you're just not considering non-Ruby options. Which is totally your prerogative. Just saying it's not my experience. It may be the best Ruby framework. But that's a different argument.
> What I really need when I'm starting a new project and I'm working on a shoestring budget, is speed. I need to build something fast so I can get funded.
Aside from syntax, I don't see any reason anyone would be faster with Rails. It's certainly not my experience. I worked with Ruby for 8 years. I've seen some very talented and very enthusiastic Rails developers. I've never seen one that could build an app faster than even an ASP.NET developer from years ago, and I certainly don't see any advantage over Play, which is generally more stable, much faster, projects generally have fewer dependencies.
The performance advantage of other platforms is underappreciated IMO. The fastest code is no code. If I can do something in Scala through brute that would be impractical to do within the request/response cycle in a Rails Action, that's a development speed advantage. If I never need to consider using some sort of background job service like Resque or message queue because I can just say `Future(someComplexOperation)`, that's a development speed advantage. If I don't need to tune my app or worry about my caching strategies because it's just that fast... You get the point I'm trying to make I'm sure.
Outside of performance, deployment (far simpler with Play), language syntax, and ActiveRecord (I'd just use the simpler, faster Lightbend Slick library) they're basically the same framework. Play doesn't chart much new territory. Sure WebSockets integration with Actors is lightyears ahead. But many won't ever touch it. There's some JSON stuff with validations that's very powerful, but embedding the equivalent of a JSON schema in your Action is verbose beyond trivial examples. I'm not sure how much use it gets.
I found Play much easier to learn than Rails (again, this was years ago) and much more consistent. Given the other advantages, all things being equal (familiar with both Scala and Ruby), it's tough to imagine many developers choosing Rails unless they were worried about externalities like building a team or something.
It'd be interesting to hear the thought process of such developers though if they're out there.