3 ms·
> Look dude. I've been around the block. I vividly remember what this shit was like in 2008. I remember what shit was like in 1998, which is why I get the same
by matt4077 9y ago
> Look dude. I've been around the block. I vividly remember what this shit was like in 2008.
I remember what shit was like in 1998, which is why I get the same sort of aggressive reflex anytime someone is criticising Rails.
Back then, a web project could, and this is only slightly hyperbolic, include a file ```/project/htdocs/version-2.0-old/real/includes/templates/config.passwords.production.INC.php3~```
...and that file would start with ```<table>``` and, somewhere, include the SQL to delete a user.
That was the state of our industry when Rails was released. Which is why anybody who went through that transition weeps whenever people today regurgitate this bullshit about "magic" and "OOP considered harmful". Maybe functional programming is incrementally better. Maybe Rails is past its prime. But on a purely emotional basis, I feel defensive when some article doesn't start with a paragraph praising the genius of DHH before offering its criticism.
- mratzloff 9y agoYou're conflating two different things. Yes, the state of the web in 1998 was as you describe, but by 2005-2006 there was an explosion of MVC web frameworks in many different languages, of which Rails was just one.
- charlieflowers 9y agoThat's right. Even pre-mvc, Java had Java Server Pages in 1999, which was much better than "<table>...sql here". However, Rails is what really launched the "MVC renaissance." Because of it, soon Java, C# and many other languages moved to predominantly MVC cultures.
- revscat 9y agoRails was a (positive) reaction to Struts. Struts was an MVC framework, but clunky and difficult to manage. ActiveRecord in particular took many lessons from what Struts did wrong, and fixed it.