4 ms·

can modern complex, large-scale web apps be built with the tools we have today, be they Python, Ruby or Javascript? They absolutely can be built using just Rai

can modern complex, large-scale web apps be built with the tools we have today, be they Python, Ruby or Javascript? They absolutely can be built using just Rails (or python) and HTML. I won't shill any harder about how, but it's not only possible, it's enjoyable and easy. I've done it.

blub 10y ago
Why not? I would be curious to see how people tackle large, complex web software in an efficient way - that is with tools support, not by fighting against them and working around inadequacies. Example: if the unit tests represent 50%+ of the code base, one is probably working around dynamic typing. And here's some examples of complex software for comparison: image editor, digital audio workstation, CAD, video conferencing, computer vision & imaging, office suite, large games (think DeusEx, not minesweeper). Not complex: almost anything CRUD
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > Example: if the unit tests represent 50%+ of the code base, one is probably working around dynamic typing Unit tests are checking a lot more than argument type.. I have no idea what environment you worked in, but the comment comes across as rather clueless.
  - lmm 10y ago
    Unit tests check a lot more than whether the argument is Int or String, but so do good type systems. I'd say your comment comes across as more clueless.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    A huge portion of unit tests are doing exactly that. Many people simply don't realize how many problems are actually type problems. Like null/nil/whatever as the most trivial example. It is more likely that your comment is made out of ignorance than the one you replied to.
  - blub 10y ago
    The 50% heuristic comes from a story I read once about a company claiming they were able to build a ~200 kloc app in a dynamic-typed language. The secret was their ~200 kloc unit test suite. :) It has nothing to do with argument types per se, just that one must have very high coverage in order to be able to be reasonably sure that their app won't crash after minor code changes. In my current project we can get away with having integration tests cover a lot of ground and only unit test what makes sense thanks to static typing. High coverage is good to have, but should be balanced with test development and maintenance effort.
- carsongross 10y ago
  Mmm. By that definition, I would not define the software I built as "complex". But I also wouldn't define Facebook, GMail or Stripe's web app as "complex" either, and I see folks using very complicated client-side technology to build those "simple" apps. I use intercooler.js, which I built, and which I shill heavily because I'm quixotically trying to fight the Facebook/Google 80's-style-thick-clients-in-javascript zeitgeist.
mirsadm 10y ago
Claiming it is easy is probably bit of a stretch. I can't imagine any large-scale web app or native desktop app being easy to implement, regardless of the tools.

blub 10y ago

Why not? I would be curious to see how people tackle large, complex web software in an efficient way - that is with tools support, not by fighting against them and working around inadequacies. Example: if the unit tests represent 50%+ of the code base, one is probably working around dynamic typing. And here's some examples of complex software for comparison: image editor, digital audio workstation, CAD, video conferencing, computer vision & imaging, office suite, large games (think DeusEx, not minesweeper). Not complex: almost anything CRUD

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> Example: if the unit tests represent 50%+ of the code base, one is probably working around dynamic typing Unit tests are checking a lot more than argument type.. I have no idea what environment you worked in, but the comment comes across as rather clueless.
- lmm 10y ago
  Unit tests check a lot more than whether the argument is Int or String, but so do good type systems. I'd say your comment comes across as more clueless.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  A huge portion of unit tests are doing exactly that. Many people simply don't realize how many problems are actually type problems. Like null/nil/whatever as the most trivial example. It is more likely that your comment is made out of ignorance than the one you replied to.
- blub 10y ago
  The 50% heuristic comes from a story I read once about a company claiming they were able to build a ~200 kloc app in a dynamic-typed language. The secret was their ~200 kloc unit test suite. :) It has nothing to do with argument types per se, just that one must have very high coverage in order to be able to be reasonably sure that their app won't crash after minor code changes. In my current project we can get away with having integration tests cover a lot of ground and only unit test what makes sense thanks to static typing. High coverage is good to have, but should be balanced with test development and maintenance effort.
carsongross 10y ago
Mmm. By that definition, I would not define the software I built as "complex". But I also wouldn't define Facebook, GMail or Stripe's web app as "complex" either, and I see folks using very complicated client-side technology to build those "simple" apps. I use intercooler.js, which I built, and which I shill heavily because I'm quixotically trying to fight the Facebook/Google 80's-style-thick-clients-in-javascript zeitgeist.

mirsadm 10y ago

Claiming it is easy is probably bit of a stretch. I can't imagine any large-scale web app or native desktop app being easy to implement, regardless of the tools.