I find Elixir and Phoenix have most of the niceties of RoR but a more rigid handling of databases with Ecto and very few of the drawbacks.
Rails is better low code than low code
221–230 of 249 posts
Re: Rails is better low code than low code
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Strongly typed" is not a well defined term—it basically means "I'm personally comfortable with the level of guarantees offered by the language", which is a purely subjective measurement. In context it's obvious that what OP meant is that they wouldn't want to build in a language without statically-checked types. That there are languages that provide even fewer statically-analyzable guarantees than Ruby does not make…
> "Strongly typed" is not a well defined term True. But it has boundaries. Strongly typed cannot be used for langs with implicit nulls. You need to do better than stock C, C++, Java or Go to be able to use the term. Rust, Elm, Haskell, Kotlin and OCaml come to mind.
No, that's also entirely subjective. You feel that way, others don't.
Re: Rails is better low code than low code
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ruby is strongly typed. Dynamic typing and inferred typing are not the same as typeless. B and Forth are examples of typeless languages.
"Strongly typed" is not a well defined term—it basically means "I'm personally comfortable with the level of guarantees offered by the language", which is a purely subjective measurement. In context it's obvious that what OP meant is that they wouldn't want to build in a language without statically-checked types. That there are languages that provide even fewer statically-analyzable guarantees than Ruby does not make…
> In context it's obvious that what OP meant is that they wouldn't want to build in a language without statically-checked types.
They should say that then. "Dynamically typed language" is not much harder to say or write than "typless language", but is correct instead of being incorrect. And that is a well defined term :)
Re: Rails is better low code than low code
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
RAD is a broadly used term, but tools like Delphi were good at it and not restricted. You could build anything, but the dream of dragging and dropping little boxes and filling properties to build applications with the client and having, possibly another team, building other little boxes to satisfy the features you couldn't deliver, was a successful way of doing things. I would say especially in modern day guy in some…
Then again, I wouldn't say Delphi was (is?) "low code". Certainly easier to use than some of the alternatives available for building GUI applications at the time (looking at you "Visual" C++!), but that just took care of the boilerplate, you still had to code the application's business logic.
Yes, I agree, but they were talking about RAD tools and Delphi was the posterchild for RAD tools. I was solely responding to the term RAD tools (and their abuse/misuse).
Re: Rails is better low code than low code
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Strongly typed" is not a well defined term—it basically means "I'm personally comfortable with the level of guarantees offered by the language", which is a purely subjective measurement. In context it's obvious that what OP meant is that they wouldn't want to build in a language without statically-checked types. That there are languages that provide even fewer statically-analyzable guarantees than Ruby does not make…
> In context it's obvious that what OP meant is that they wouldn't want to build in a language without statically-checked types. They should say that then. "Dynamically typed language" is not much harder to say or write than "typless language", but is correct instead of being incorrect. And that is a well defined term :)
Most academics would agree with them that dynamically typed languages are a misnomer and in fact have no type system. And whether you want to use the colloquial term that counts dynamically typed languages or the academic one that doesn't is a subjective decision, and one where their choice was clear from context.
More generally, advocates of dynamically typed languages seem to want their languages to be considered typed because there's a developing consensus that typed is better. Unfortunately for said advocates, that consensus was not developed in contrast to languages like Forth, it was developed in contrast to languages like Ruby, so changing the definition of a type system to accommodate Ruby doesn't actually get you credibility in the new "cool kids club". You're better off arguing why dynamic is better than static than you are trying to enforce a particular definition of types. No one is going to be persuaded that Ruby meets their needs just because you made them use your definition.
Re: Rails is better low code than low code
#226What is "low code"?
Stuff like MS Power Apps. More traditionally MS Access. Basically drag and drop App builder - UI form builder, connectors to connect to public API-s and even store data.
Thanks. Yeah, Wikipedia claims it become a term of art in 2016, so I don't feel too bad about not being familiar with it.
Re: Rails is better low code than low code
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In context it's obvious that what OP meant is that they wouldn't want to build in a language without statically-checked types. They should say that then. "Dynamically typed language" is not much harder to say or write than "typless language", but is correct instead of being incorrect. And that is a well defined term :)
Most academics would agree with them that dynamically typed languages are a misnomer and in fact have no type system. And whether you want to use the colloquial term that counts dynamically typed languages or the academic one that doesn't is a subjective decision, and one where their choice was clear from context. More generally, advocates of dynamically typed languages seem to want their languages to be considered t…
Incredible, I disagree with just about every point you made. We're not going to make any progress, have a good day.
Re: Rails is better low code than low code
#228I don’t want to build in a language without types, but low code is even less types than Rails. I’ve just never worked on a public app that was simple enough for Rails to feel good - Airbnb was rails but by the time I got there it was very much not simple. Internal tools in rails though, that is okay.
Ruby has types.
Whenever I google to see if people are enjoying Sorbet or RBS I find articles like this that basically say “no, no one seems to be enjoying this and it’s going nowhere” https://brandur.org/fragments/ruby-typing-2024
In my opinion RBS files are a horrible design decision and split the Ruby community between a typing system that people actually want to use (Sorbet) and a typing system we’ll tolerate because it’s official but a pain in the ass (RBS), leaving both ecosystems to whither. Sad :-(
Re: Rails is better low code than low code
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only question is: does anyone want to do that job (and I doubt that the "maintenance" job will be better paid than the job for originally writing the code)?
I think it will be well paid but not fun at all. I have done similar work and at least cleaning up after bad human developers is often well paid. But time will tell.
> at least cleaning up after bad human developers is often well paid.
I wish!
"This was written by Bob, who's a certified genius. Unfortunately Bob left us to go backpacking across Chile. Can you make just this one tiny change for us?
...
What do you mean, billing for a full day? Bob used to be able to dive right in and make changes like this in 5m!"