Next.js 12 • Hacker News Board

Re: Next.js 12

#291

Post by albertgao » Tue, Nov 09, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

midrus wrote: post #268

hugocbp wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your point, but having worked with Rails and now working on a React + Flask app, Next.js is the closest thing to Rails we have so far. And, having worked on a Rails + React app a few years back, I can safely say that is about as complext as a Next.js full-stack app. I do love Rails and I still think the React + Something on Backend environment is still not there yet (at least not like Rails 4 and 5, whic…

But why do we need a new rails? That's what I don't get. Just because we want to use JavaScript?

Simply because Rails is not designed to solve frontend problem where complex user interactions and client side state are included, not to mention partial rendering and transition. Rails is a backend framework after all, spitting a HTML is all it can do in terms of a frontend part. Just don’t know why you think you can solve all the modern frontend user interaction with a backend framework like rails and Django,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Re: Next.js 12

#292

Post by midrus » Wed, Nov 10, 2021, 6:05 AM UTC

albertgao wrote: post #291

midrus wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why do we need a new rails? That's what I don't get. Just because we want to use JavaScript?

Simply because Rails is not designed to solve frontend problem where complex user interactions and client side state are included, not to mention partial rendering and transition. Rails is a backend framework after all, spitting a HTML is all it can do in terms of a frontend part. Just don’t know why you think you can solve all the modern frontend user interaction with a backend framework like rails and Django,,,,,,,…

Github, Hey, and so many others are examples of Rails applications with complex interactions. Server templates and partials rendering doesn't mean "I reload the page on every click and can't write any javascript because I only do ruby". You have tools for doing dynamic html too, just not your usual redux/rxjs/thunk/observable/typesafeactions stuff.

Agree that Django is a backend framework, but Rails is not, you can certainly do frontend in Rails. Just not SPAs, but you need a more open mindset for understanding how it is intended to be used.

Of course, if you are building Google Docs or Maps then you're probably better with a SPA framework. But not for 90% of applications out there which are just CRUD apps.

Re: Next.js 12

#293

Post by midrus » Wed, Nov 10, 2021, 6:10 AM UTC

albertgao wrote: post #290

midrus wrote: post #122

I'm going to be downvoted to hell for this... but the more I see the level of complexity and amount of engineering going into this, the more I miss Rails and how simple things are there, given most of us are just building CRUD apps anyways.

Because in 21st century, not everyone likes a website with a lower-bar rendering experience… SPA or hybrid rendering is just plain better, but I get the point where time is limited for human being, so if modern frontend is hard to grasp for you, perfectly to stick with old tech. Pretty safe.

> SPA or hybrid rendering is just plain better,

It is not for your end users, just for the developers building it because it has a better dev experience. As a proof of this try most sites out there which are built as an SPA vs the ones built with more traditional approaches.

Also, building SPAs is incredibly more difficult and time consuming, that's why most of them work like shit.