3 ms·

Eh - Rails is good. Really good. And I don't think it is just _so_ flawed that another framework has to come along and make things better. It's also fast, has a

Eh - Rails is good. Really good. And I don't think it is just _so_ flawed that another framework has to come along and make things better. It's also fast, has a great ecosystem, is one of the least buggy development environments, enjoyable to work with... That said, Crystal needs a rails-like framework. And who knows - maybe it will come to replace rails as the most productive and enjoyable framework for web development. But it'll take a while, a long while, to replicate the robustness that rails has - and a lot of that has to come from a vibrant community. But it's not changing any games - it's still just a web development framework, for a language that's not even at 1.0.

paulcsmith 8y ago
I agree. I've been using Rails for 12 years and it is my second favorite framework :) Lucky and Crystal are missing the ecosystem, which the article mentions, but it also adds a lot that Rails is missing. Lucky is much much faster and the speed is effortless. Rails can be fast, but based on my experience so far, you have to do some work to get reasonable speeds. Lucky and Crystal have also caught a lot of bugs, which makes development much more pleasurable, and happier customers. Right now, it probably takes longer to use Lucky and Crystal. Like you said, the ecosystem is lacking so you often have to write code that Ruby would have a gem for, but in the long term, this will be solved. I'm very confident of that.