6 ms·
This is a great summary, and there look to be some really interesting things coming in Rails 5. Two thoughts: 1) I hope ActionCable is as seamless to integrate
by bshimmin 11y ago
This is a great summary, and there look to be some really interesting things coming in Rails 5. Two thoughts:
1) I hope ActionCable is as seamless to integrate and works as well as Rails features ought to; you can, of course, achieve web sockets right now using Faye or various other implementations, but it's quite complex to get right (though the faye-rails gem is pretty handy) - and realtime functionality is becoming more and more important.
2) I wish they'd just give up on Turbolinks. Maybe some people are using it and love it, but it's always the first thing I turn off when I start a new Rails project, and I know quite a few people who feel the same. For those of us who never thought it was a good idea in the first place, I'm not sure any number of improvements are going to change our minds.
- giuseppeciuni 11y agoI totally agree with your 2 point. I always turn off turbolink too when I start a new rails project!
- skrebbel 11y agoI didn't use rails since turbolinks appeared, but I really like the idea on paper. Why do you turn it off?
- jkxyz 11y agoBy default it's a global always-on feature. I think it's the sort of feature that might be great in certain parts of the application (like tabbed pages) but having globally enabled by default isn't ideal. For me the built-in browser feedback of loading a new page works pretty well, and having to rebuild this feedback in an application so that it works everywhere is simply unnecessary work.
- bshimmin 11y agoYeah, exactly. I think the very existence of this site also kind of sums up the problem: http://reed.github.io/turbolinks-compatibility/ http://reed.github.io/turbolinks-compatibility/
- technion 11y ago>2) I wish they'd just give up on Turbolinks Ditto for Coffeescript. I realise you can't just remove it, but the whole dev community is raving about ES6 - there's a whole of JS devs who could be a lot more interested in Rails.
- danmaz74 11y agoTurbolinks can create problems even to those who don't use them explicitly, but Coffeescript can't: if you don't like it, just don't use it, and it's as if it wasn't there. How would removing it from the asset compiler help you in any way?
- technion 11y agoThere's a cultural impact - it's hard to look at Rails without being pushed in that direction. Does it directly impact me now that I choose to ignore it? No. Does it impact a newcomer, particularly one that's into JS? Yes.
- KurtMueller 11y agoThis nifty web app is a good starting point: http://js2.coffee/ http://js2.coffee/ It's not perfect but it's how I learned coffeescript. Other than that, I don't think Rails necessarily pushes either for/against coffeescript. You can either use it or not. Plenty of rails apps have been written in plain 'ol js.
- KurtMueller 11y agoYou can choose to not use coffeescript in any Rails project. As for ES6, there is the sprockets-es6 gem. According to their github gem, their goal is to get in es6 support into sprockets 4. This, obviously, is not a perfect solution - but I think this is going in the right direction.
- rcaught 11y agoI used to disable Turbolinks as well, but I took the time recently to use Turbolinks 3 (off master) in a project and have been really impressed with what you can achieve. The server-side partial replacement, for example, is wonderful.
- headz 11y ago2) Why? Have you ever tried it? I use it on all my projects and it works great.