4 ms·
The web site linked has very few details. Whenever I read "Ruby on Rails", I can't help but think back to when it was the latest fad and everyone was playing w
by johnklos 8y ago
The web site linked has very few details.
Whenever I read "Ruby on Rails", I can't help but think back to when it was the latest fad and everyone was playing with it, but then every single project would break whenever any of the 82 dependencies needed to be updated due to security issues.
Since this site has no details, I've lost interest since I have no intention of revisiting that shitshow without someone telling me it's somehow different, that the dependency nightmare is now fixed. Pretty or not, projects which require significant energy to just keep up with security updates aren't worth it.
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoYeah, people have moved onto another dependency shitshow with modern JavaScript.
- swerveonem 8y agoThey have not moved on, rails has matured and now requires less public debate.
- bdcravens 8y agoAren't you describing a situation that persists with virtually every framework that relies upon external libraries and manages dependencies?
- erokar 8y agoWhat would be an example of a language/framework for web development that avoids the dependency shitshow you describe?
- slig 8y agoNot OP, but it's completely possible to build a complete webapp with just two dependencies: Python/Django and a database adaptor for PostgreSQL/MySQL.
- erokar 8y agoOf course. The same is true for Rails. Realistically though, wouldn't a Django developer -- like say a Rails developer, a C# developer or a JS developer -- usually add some convenient packages?