3 ms·
Are you an experienced web programmer and already know how to manage migrations, CDN, REST apis, etc ? If not, I would still go with Rails. Its massively produ
by sandGorgon 10y ago
Are you an experienced web programmer and already know how to manage migrations, CDN, REST apis, etc ?
If not, I would still go with Rails. Its massively productive, batteries included... and forces you to learn some practices that you can later take to other frameworks (migrations, asset pipeline, etc).
I dont know of any other framework that forces you to adopt these. On HN, you will find a lot of rhetoric against that - which may be true for experienced programmers.
But for sheer productivity from someone new to all this... Rails really cannot be beaten.
In the JS world, you will spend atleast a couple of days figuring out Requirejs vs AMD vs commonjs vs webpack vs browserify vs npm vs yarn.
I'm not so sure if it is worth it...unless learning JS frameworks was your goal all along.
- drum 10y agoI can't agree with this more, and with the addition of Turbolinks in recent Rails versions you get the snappiness of a JS front end framework in areas like page load. After building a service oriented architecture with React and Rails I truly realized the benefit of a tightly coupled front end / backend for speed of development and deployment. Building bespoke API's for other clients isn't as much of a headache as it's been made out to be.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sjellis 10y agoI think that database management features in particular are a huge benefit for many applications - db generation from code, migrations, and seeding. Once you have more than two environments (dev machine/staging/prod, or more than one developer) moving database changes between environments becomes a big potential source of friction. I'm always keep in an eye out for a Rails replacement, and a good database story is the first thing that I look for.