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

Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 248 posts

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#151

Post by kaba0 »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #34
jupp0r wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more. There is also a technology aspect to it. Rails is objectively veeeeeery slow. Concurrency support is nonexistent. This is not a good fit for all problems. It also to some degree prevents you from breaking out the parts that would benefit from a different language into their own services (Rails needs to call them, but it's really not good at IO).

Is there a comparable framework that does what Rails does but is somehow 10x faster? I wouldn't use Rails for everything but the fact that plenty of companies like Shopify are serving millions of requests per second with it shows that it's probably acceptably fast for mega scale apps.

Spring, perhaps.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#152

Post by mattgreenrocks »

block_dagger wrote: post #133
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to have go push back on this. I don't like the RoR community, not because they're bad people, but because I think they're insane from a tech perspective. I only occasionally pick up RoR work because of how off-putting my first experience was. But what makes it worse is that every project I've been on (including one I just started on a few weeks ago) has just been a cluster. What you're saying here is true i…

I think you have encountered some projects built by undisciplined teams. That is not a reflection on the framework, rather a reflection on the people improperly using it.

The culture encourages a lack of discipline; indeed, high framework coupling is seen as the Rails way.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#153

Post by VeejayRampay »

kawsper wrote: post #23
Towaway69 wrote: post #5

Two figures that inspired me were missing, why the lucky stiff and Ryan Bates from railcasts fame. Otherwise great docu with DHH "f*uk you" slide which does give an insight into successful open source projects.

I agree with that, I would also have liked to have seen Tenderlove in it.

tenderlove is legend, on both the Ruby and the Ruby on Rails sides

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#154

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

LargeWu wrote: post #148
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because behavior is an unspoken part of contracts. I can't reasonably swap out an array with a linked list even if the official contracts are the same. this is why things like DAL's are created, they give you an opportunity to deal with the differences in behavior. The issue with frameworks like RoR that use AR throughout is that the queries are sprinkled throughout the codebase, giving no opportunity to fix such beh…

What kinds of queries are sprinkled throughout that are not part of AR, or depend on AR? Sure, if you are going to swap out AR for another ORM in the middle of an established project you are going to have a bad time, but if one is doing that I have larger questions.

I must be misunderstanding the question because anything that queries in rails uses AR and that's often done in both lib code and controller code rather than behind a dedicated module boundary.

What is it that's not making sense to you?

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#155

Post by JohnBooty »

mosselman wrote: post #2

I had a lot of fun watching this documentary. The one person framework really comes out in the personal story of Toby from Shopify. "From Hello World to IPO". What I also loved is that he mentioned that if you open up any Rails application, it looks basically the same in structure whether it is the biggest Rails app there is or a new one. Sure that can be true for many apps, but in a world of, for example, APIs and f…

     it looks basically the same in structure whether it is the 
     biggest Rails app there is or a new one
Totally agree! Developers tend to really undervalue this aspect of RoR.

In addition to easier onboarding, it greatly reduces bikeshedding.

MVC maybe isn't the best paradigm for everything, but it's good enough for most things.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#156

Post by DoesntMatter22 »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #154
LargeWu wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kinds of queries are sprinkled throughout that are not part of AR, or depend on AR? Sure, if you are going to swap out AR for another ORM in the middle of an established project you are going to have a bad time, but if one is doing that I have larger questions.

I must be misunderstanding the question because anything that queries in rails uses AR and that's often done in both lib code and controller code rather than behind a dedicated module boundary. What is it that's not making sense to you?

> because anything that queries in rails uses AR and that's often done in both lib code and controller code

How is that different from any other framework ever? You have to query the DB somewhere. Rails makes it incredibly easy to swap out databases. Much more so than any other platform I can think of.

Nothing is making you use AR at all. This is a non issue.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#157

Post by battery_glasses »

I worked on a very large production rails app from 2015-2019 and came away loving Rails and hating Ruby. Give me Rails in TS or Go and I couldn't think of any reason to ever use anything else for a web app backend.

The Rails Console has to be one of the greatest productivity enhancers I've ever come across.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#158

Post by windowshopping »

MatthiasPortzel wrote: post #57
AlchemistCamp wrote: post #11

One of my biggest mistakes as a dev was not really learning Rails until 2015. I just didn’t know how much faster building web apps could be.

Same. I spent so long building Django apps and trying to solve problems that StackOverflow told me were inherently difficult, only to find out that Rails has built-in solutions. This isn’t even a criticism of Django; the things that Django does, it does very well. But there are a lot of things that it doesn’t do that a mature web app will eventually need to handle.

My biggest issue with rails is that the convention it forces you into feels like it's not really a one-size-fits-all solution. I typically build sites that are a one-page or 2-3 page JS app running on an API, as opposed to the more traditional idea of backend paths that return html views. And it seemed like rails wasn't well-suited to that, which was why I didn't stick with it.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#159

Post by evntdrvn »

neonsunset wrote: post #127
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to have go push back on this. I don't like the RoR community, not because they're bad people, but because I think they're insane from a tech perspective. I only occasionally pick up RoR work because of how off-putting my first experience was. But what makes it worse is that every project I've been on (including one I just started on a few weeks ago) has just been a cluster. What you're saying here is true i…

.NET's LTS releases are supported for 3 years and STS are supported for 18 months. I wish LTS support was 5 years, it seems like ecosystem has matured enough post-going-OSS-wild-ride starting with .NET 6 release and is ready for such a support timeframe. Or at least they could have every other LTS be ELTS? Also, I do wonder if RoRs perceived productivity is by inertia? I have a hard time believing you can top the pro…

On the flip side, within the last few years, upgrading .NET versions has become typically a very easy exercise.

The ASP.NET team tends to churn stuff wayyy more often than I'd like for questionable reasons, which can make keeping more painful than I'd like - but tbh I often just keep using the older ways of doing things in ASP.NET since it's almost always still supported...

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#160

Post by reducesuffering »

Towaway69 wrote: post #12
brap wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if you open up any Rails application, it looks basically the same in structure whether it is the biggest Rails app there is or a new one I've never worked with Rails, but this sounds amazing. One of the things I really hate about the Node.js ecosystem is that there are no clear conventions, the structure is always different even when the same framework is used. It's a mess. The exception is probably Next.js but it's…

True, nodejs really doesn't have _the_ framework. Python had flask, php is WordPress and RoR. Why is that? Especially since most of the new frameworks copy the ideas of existing frameworks. P.S. Perhaps because a JS framework based off the ideas of rails would be called jails! /s

Despite what others will say here, it actually is Next.js. People don't agree with parts of the stack (just as C#/Java people didn't agree with what Rails was doing in 2005), or point out projects with the equivalent mindshare of Sinatra/Flask like Nuxt and Svelte, but when you look at what company-level projects are majority building with in 2023, it's Next.js.

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/trends?tags=next.js%2Cnes...

Post reply on HN