Live data from Hacker News

Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

youtube.com

31–40 of 248 posts

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#31

Sounds like from the comments that Rails is gaining a little bit more popularity again instead of being known as the boring robust framework

I probably won't use it again in any projects, but I liked the video because of nostalgia. Rails is a memory of a fun and scrappier me, a different time, appropriate in its own light for my path at the time.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#33
post #17

> 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 used to love this, untill I started to hate it. I am convinced this is a major contributor to why so many Rails apps turn into an unmaintainable mess over years. Who measures onboarding in hours? It's fine if it takes a day or two to understand the domain. And the framework. An…

I don't know what exactly the complaint is here. You don't like that Rails has a common structure?

> It's virtually impossible to swap AR out for anything else.

I've used Mongo and a number of other ORM's, why can you not use other ORM's exactly?

This just sounds like you don't like frameworks and want to build things from the ground up, because most of the complaints you make are just not true. Maybe you are just inexperienced with Rails because you can swap out almost anything.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#34
post #20
post #17

> 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 used to love this, untill I started to hate it. I am convinced this is a major contributor to why so many Rails apps turn into an unmaintainable mess over years. Who measures onboarding in hours? It's fine if it takes a day or two to understand the domain. And the framework. An…

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.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#35

Sounds like from the comments that Rails is gaining a little bit more popularity again instead of being known as the boring robust framework

I probably won't use it again in any projects, but I liked the video because of nostalgia. Rails is a memory of a fun and scrappier me, a different time, appropriate in its own light for my path at the time.

After doing lots of Node and Go I've recently come back to Rails and, no joke, it's about 5x faster in development for me. So many niceties. Using Prisma I had a 25 line method (and no real models) and that went down to 3 lines in Rails. It's just a night and day difference. I won't leave Rails again.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#36
post #20
post #17

> 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 used to love this, untill I started to hate it. I am convinced this is a major contributor to why so many Rails apps turn into an unmaintainable mess over years. Who measures onboarding in hours? It's fine if it takes a day or two to understand the domain. And the framework. An…

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).

compare with what, in what load?

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#37
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.

and gitlab, github :)

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#38
What I really appreciate about Rails, is the strong vision, and not becoming another bloated framework for building "enterprise grade" applications. This is a 20-year-old framework, which does not afraid to radically change with time, and still being seen as Punk compared to rest

It was so heartwarming to remember my Rails story, its been 20 years ago since I started using it! https://twitter.com/buger/status/1723040883325460818

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#39
post #17

> 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 used to love this, untill I started to hate it. I am convinced this is a major contributor to why so many Rails apps turn into an unmaintainable mess over years. Who measures onboarding in hours? It's fine if it takes a day or two to understand the domain. And the framework. An…

since "plumbing" is an essential part of *every* application, I'd rather not focus on it all the time.

I maintained both kinds of framework-heavy and "organic home grown just libraries" apps, and you know what? I totally prefer framework heavy stuff; at least it has battle tested facilities for everything, and I can expect consistency instead of fomo-driven/resume-driven development.

my last homegrown framework was a nasty 60k LoC api that did like 10 operations. total business logic was 3000 lines, including fn declarations and docs. just transaction scripts. the remaining 57k were a gargantuan amount of boilerplate that gave absolutely nothing to the project, and all in "typed python" which is like 0.9x java verbosity. a massive piece of shit.

Re: Ruby on Rails: The Documentary [video]

#40
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Laravel would be a better example for PHP, especially as it borrowed so many ideas from Rails.

Correct.
Post reply on HN