4 ms·
You will indeed have to re-implement stuff Rails gives you. But more importantly, you will have to maintain it. I maintain a large-ish Sinatra app that should'
by bphogan 10y ago
You will indeed have to re-implement stuff Rails gives you. But more importantly, you will have to maintain it.
I maintain a large-ish Sinatra app that should've been done with Rails. Update cycles on the gems are a nightmare. It feels cobbled together. it's a "half baked homegrown version of Rails."
Someday I will just move the logic to a new Rails app and be done with it. It was a terrible idea.
* your experience may vary. :)
- elliotec 10y agoMy experience was exactly the same. Sinatra is for super tiny things. Rails is for most things.
- tchow 10y agoWhat is a large-ish app? Just for comparison's sake? What makes it large-ish? The number of tables? The number of views? What is the problem that large-ish apps give that Rails solves? Genuine questions, I only do small projects and I honestly don't see a huge benefit to using rails, despite having used it before.
- hkarthik 10y agoAny sufficiently complicated Sinatra app contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Rails.