4 ms·
I think Rails is fine. It gets you up and running super fast. GitHub, Heroku, Basecamp etc. run on Rails and they are doing great. It's popular because it's
by sidcool 8y ago
I think Rails is fine. It gets you up and running super fast. GitHub, Heroku, Basecamp etc. run on Rails and they are doing great. It's popular because it's relatively 'low-code' than other language/frameworks. Ruby is quite simple to get started with and Rails' convention over configuration philosophy gives a lot out of the box.
Having said this, it's not all rosy. Rails does buckle under scale, hence LinkedIn and Twitter had to gradually migrate to Scala(I think) based platforms. This is more a problem with Ruby than with Rails. A huge Ruby backend application becomes quite difficult to reason without a good type system. It's not impossible, just more difficult than say Scala or Haskell or Rust, that have very strong static types.
I am sure I am missing a lot in this comment.
- KurtMueller 8y ago> A huge Ruby backend application becomes quite difficult to reason without a good type system. It's not impossible, just more difficult than say Scala or Haskell or Rust, that have very strong static types. It also becomes difficult to refactor if you don't have a very good test suite. From personal experience, refactoring an Elm application is way way easier and more error-free than refactoring a Rails app.