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

Rails is better low code than low code

radanskoric.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 249 posts

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#181

Post by jack_riminton »

Gigachad wrote: post #120
lazylester wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...but will constantly run in to situations where another gems code is using the method that just changed". I've worked with Rails for 20 years and haven't seen this. Have I just been really lucky? I'm sure your test suite showed the warnings about the Redis `exists()` change for many versions prior to its actually being changed, right?

I’ve worked on rails apps for a while now and on previous jobs it wasn’t so bad, but those were smaller apps. At the current company, almost every update manages to slip something through CI that blows up on production. Even with 30,000 rspec tests and tons of cypress tests. The CI is set up to raise exceptions on warnings, but I think it only applies to warnings raised by rails. I guess rails works alright at the st…

30,000+ tests and it can't detect breaking changes?

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#182

Post by user432678 »

twen_ty wrote: post #149

What is low code anyway in 2024? For example, is AWS Amplify or Firebase low code?

Some managers at my current consultancy job think that ChatGPT is a low code solution worth selling to the customers as a service. I wonder if it’s a 4d chess approach to sell traditional programmers once clients realise that ChatGPT slop of code now needs way more than LLM-powered developers to maintain it.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#183

Post by another-dave »

glutamate wrote: post #168

If you are asking "well we could build this in 2 hours with low-code or 8 hours with rails" - then you are not the target market for low-code. To be able to build a rails app in one day takes years of skill and education and maturity. A lot of people or organisations want to build apps but don't have that expertise. Also, I don't see what is wrong with the outcome that at some point you have to rebuild with code. You…

> If you are asking "well we could build this in 2 hours with low-code or 8 hours with rails" - then you are not the target market for low-code. To be able to build a rails app in one day takes years of skill and education and maturity. A lot of people or organisations want to build apps but don't have that expertise.

Exactly, low/no code solutions have their limitations, but I think the space they're useful for is — "they" need a simple CRUD app so they build it themselves in No Code solution, figure out what they really want & what the pain points are and _then_ bring on board a developer if it needs expansion, but with a real todo list in front of them.

Or (just as useful to the business user), realise it's not what they need and bin the project before engaging a dev at all.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#184

Post by jack_riminton »

glutamate wrote: post #168

If you are asking "well we could build this in 2 hours with low-code or 8 hours with rails" - then you are not the target market for low-code. To be able to build a rails app in one day takes years of skill and education and maturity. A lot of people or organisations want to build apps but don't have that expertise. Also, I don't see what is wrong with the outcome that at some point you have to rebuild with code. You…

Well that's the point of the article isn't it, Rails hasn't been the flavour-of-the-month in about 15 years, it's boringly good, so that's why you should stick with it

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#185

Post by jordanbeiber »

ajcp wrote: post #101
throwaway42668 wrote: post #83

I never understood the "low code" microbubble that was being inflated. We went through that era already. We called them RAD tools, and they targeted the same sort of strange, mythical end user profile. Someone so technically capable and apt that they could navigate a dizzying domain of deeply buried checkboxes, property fields, and sprawling relationships & side-effects, but who was also simultaneously unable to unde…

I think you're taking the intent of "low-code" too literal, or have not worked in an organization of sufficient size for its value proposition to be evident. It's not to solve a solutioning problem; it's to solve an organizational one. While any "low-code" is marketed as a WYSWG, business friendly solution platform, what it actually is is a way for the business to get access to capabilities IT otherwise gatekeeps as…

Writing the code is NOT the problem with these enterprise project failures.

Usually decades of problem-solving have led to an absolute mess of blurry ownership and accountability.

This in turn leads to corner cutting and a road completely covered in Chesterton fences…

Tearing arbitrary fence down leads to consequences out of project scope, no one can answer questions, and no one can prioritize - this is a business problem, and no amount of fancy code (lo/hi/full/lo/left or right) will help.

If you run a bigger company and rely on IT and ERP flows, well, it’s a part of your core and you’d better treat it as such!

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#186

Post by devoutsalsa »

dagw wrote: post #176
devoutsalsa wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of FME before, but I don't do any GIS work. Are you referring to this? https://www.tensing.com/en/software/fme Tensing looks like they specialize in GIS.

Right software, wrong company. Tensing appears to be a FME reseller and consultant. https://www.safe.com is the company that makes FME. While they started in the GIS world, and this is very much where their roots and core user base is, they've expanded greatly over the past few years into becoming a more general automation, data processing and ETL tool.

Ah, cool. Thanks. This must be for serious industry w/ deep pockets. There's not even a sign up link for individuals.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#187

Post by maleldil »

raffraffraff wrote: post #147
rqtwteye wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I usually go straight to the full language. It's pretty hard to find the point when to switch from low code to something else when there is time pressure. Same with bash vs python. People say you should switch from bash once you have more than 100 lines or so. But at this point you already have some complexity in bash which makes the switch to python non trivial. So you usually end up patching the bash script in smal…

Unless you're a regular python user who has already paid the high cost of installing learning to use the whole mess of tools, the break even point exists. There are times when I do the 100+ lines of shell to avoid python. How often do python apps just stop working on me for no apparent reason? (Yesterday I tried to launch puddletag and had to nuke it and reinstall). But for me the big thing is that using "curl | jq |…

If you're using simple pipes with little control flow, bash is a great choice. Once you need something more complex, you're better off using something else. Not necessarily Python (Ruby and JS work well as replacements, too), but that would be my first choice.

For most simple scripts, Python's standard library is more than enough. File operations, JSON manipulation, HTTP requests and argument parsing are all available without external packages.

Regarding Python apps, have you tried using pipx to install them? That would eliminate most dependency problems, which usually arise from sharing the same environment (potentially including conflicting dependencies) across different apps.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#188

Post by dustingetz »

cies wrote: post #161
ahodgkinson wrote: post #66

Low code initially works quite well until you hit the limits of the low-code framework. If you just need a throw-away proof of concept, or a personal utility, or the like, low-code solutions can be quite efficient. However, implementing anything significant that's expected to be extended and improved, particularly when there are users that request changes, improvements and new features, low-code "is like climbing a t…

> Low code initially works quite well until you hit the limits of the low-code framework. If you just need a throw-away proof of concept, or a personal utility, or the like, low-code solutions can be quite efficient. The same I'd say for dynamically typed languages (and their frameworks like Rails): initially works quite well until you hit the limits. Once your app is big and there is a team, the efficiency dwindles.…

at some point we need to take a step back and acknowledge that programming is not solved, no kind of language works particularly well at scale. Companies have been buying their way out by growing revenue/cash more quickly than tech debt, and those that fail to do that, stagnate and die.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#189

Post by nickjj »

ryukoposting wrote: post #58
namaria wrote: post #3

The low code space has been well explored. Excel is the flagship product in that space. You tell me if you want to be involved with a long lived and non trivial collection of spreadsheets.

I'll never understand why more devs don't learn Excel. Yeah, it's ugly. It's also the only thing you know you can use to develop a tool, slap one file into an email, send it to whoever needs the tool, and they'll immediately know exactly how to open it and use it. No 5-step lists of instructions, no dependency hell, no need to subvert the IT department. Excel is the lowest-friction platform for developing internal to…

Yep, even the most basic knowledge such as knowing how to do math on a few cells can be useful to build things. It's really good for one off internal tools to do comparisons.

For the first 5 years of selling courses I handled affiliate payouts by sorting and summing rows in a spreadsheet. It only took 5 minutes once a month. I eventually automated what I used to do manually with a script that reads the CSV file because I like coding and it was fun to me, plus I wanted to remove one point of human error.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#190

Post by forinti »

phartenfeller wrote: post #175
forinti wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apex is nice, but it becomes hard to maintain larger applications. It also makes it so easy to create opportunities for SQL injection if you don't have careful coders. And it is also a great target for DoS attacks. Having said all this, it really is the only low code platform I would ever consider using, in spite of it being Oracle's.

> It also makes it so easy to create opportunities for SQL injection if you don't have careful coders. This is not the case. If you bind values with :ITEM_NAME and use compiled statements (never dynamic string concatenated ones with "execute immediate') there is no chance of SQL injection.

You can set items from the URL, which you usually can't do with most web frameworks. Of course you can enable Session State Protection, but you have to be vigilant.

You can also inadvertently leave a page public.

Post reply on HN