3 ms·
I agree with some of the issues that the author points in Rails; but, at the same time, he is unable to name what is "today's software" using his words. Until t
by cplanas 10y ago
I agree with some of the issues that the author points in Rails; but, at the same time, he is unable to name what is "today's software" using his words. Until then, I will stay with Rails. Until then.
Moreover, the author seems to be imagining Rails as a huge monolithic piece of software. That does not need to be true.
- jmstickney 10y agoDoesn't the author end by saying Swift, Rust and Go are "tomorrow's languages"?
- collyw 10y agoYet he gives absolutely no justification for why those are "tomorrows languages". You don't use third party libraries or frameworks in any of those languages? Personally I design my Django code to be as simple as possible. I use third party libraries, and don't see too many of the problems he talks about.
- nicops 10y agoProbably because the author doesn't use them and thus has no idea of what their problems are, so they seem "perfect" from a distance.
- cplanas 10y agoThat's the issue: he calls them tomorrow's languages, implying that they need to change ("can you marry modern thinking, build a community [...]) before getting there, or being "today's languages". So far, I still haven't seen anything better than Rails to solve yesterday's (and today's) problems.