6 ms·
Rails is so productive and powerful these days that if you’re building a web app you need a really, really good reason not to use it
by crispyporkbites 7y ago
Rails is so productive and powerful these days that if you’re building a web app you need a really, really good reason not to use it
- bureaucrat 7y agoHow is Rails compared to Django?
- creyes 7y agoDifferent philosophies. I think the biggest difference is that Rails has a much bigger ecosystem and more developers than Django does. There are gem's out there that support almost everything you want to do and if there's not there are resources from people who have had to solve similar problems.
- hnarayanan 7y agoAnd by the same token, outside the context of "web stuff," Python generally has wider set of domain-specific packages (e.g. ML) you can easily incorporate into your web app.
- staz 7y ago> Rails has a much bigger ecosystem and more developers than Django does. [citation needed]
- qudat 7y ago> I think the biggest difference is that Rails has a much bigger ecosystem and more developers than Django does. Going to have to disagree with you there.
- chipotle_coyote 7y agoMore similar than different in a lot of ways, but I suspect the differences come out of their background. Rails was originally developed by a consulting company for both client work and their own apps, so it really emphasizes rapid development -- it pushes convention over configuration very hard, had database migrations from its first version (Django didn't get those for years, etc.). Django came out of a newspaper (the Lawrence-World Journal), and seems really optimized for building custom CMSes -- there's nothing I've found in any other system that's truly like Django's admin console, for instance. (Another sign of its newspaper heritage: it's the only template language I've ever seen whose date filter has extensions to match Associated Press style!)
- t0mbstone 7y agoActiveAdmin is just as good as Django's built-in admin system, if not better (in my humble opinion)
- t0mbstone 7y agoI used Rails for 4 years, then Django for 2 years, then back to Rails (now for another year). Programming with Ruby and Rails is like a breath of fresh air compared to Django. Working with Django was just so painful and awkward (especially if you are trying to write tests for things). I used to have a laundry list of a couple of pages worth of things that I hated about Python and Django when compared to Ruby and Rails, but I can't seem to find it right now.
- bureaucrat 7y agoCan you elaborate on that? These Ruby praises makes me want to know more as I know only Django.
- airstrike 7y agoAvailability bias. The Django praises are all in the Django threads. This is a Ruby thread after all ;-)
- cutler 7y agoRuby has unconstrained lambdas for a start and a much more composable, expressive syntax facilitating the creation of elegant DSLs. Rails, Chef and other Ruby projects lean on this feature. The goals of Ruby's creator, Matz, were more idealistic and artistic than those of Python's creator, Guido, whose values are more pragmatic and math-focused. Matz took inspiration from Perl, Smalltalk and Lisp whereas Guido set out to solve a much more local, project-based problem when he created Python.
- StreamBright 7y agoI have some: memory usage, CPU usage, raw performance, language safety, transparency. I think in the era of Elixir/Phoenix, Rust/Actix, Clojure/Luminus it is really hard to argue for Rails. Don't get me wrong, I have spent many years on it, but simply there are better alternatives, based what sort of requirements you got.
- Lordarminius 7y agoThe main issue I see with these frameworks is that they cannot match Rails' support ecosystem. The framework has around for a really long while and rails developers have made - and documented - every error, kink and detour it is possible to make when writing code. I have often been pleasantly surprised to google an esoteric problem I imagined could only arise from my own unique brand of kludginess, and find that the community had encountered and solved same in the past. This is of massive value especially to new developers.
- StreamBright 7y agoI am pretty sure. If you developing the next Basecamp these are essential. However, I rarely see Rails succeeding in other aspects of web development. I spent some time on trying to make Rails work for use cases that are not the perfect match for this ecosystem and failed. Yet, it is quite possible that there are millions on web applications out there, running on Rails happily. It is just not a great fit for things I do.
- Lordarminius 7y agoI'd be interested in knowing what areas you found Rails lacking. Care to elaborate ?
- malloryerik 7y agoI might be wrong but aren't real-time areas like WebSockets not really strong points in Rails? I do see that Action Cable appears to have improved, and I don't know at what point performance issues would get in the way, and I also probably don't know about some potential solutions. Should one choose Rails for an application with significant real-time / reactive functionality?
- monewty 7y agoI’m currently comparing Rails with .Net Core. Does anyone have experience with both? I’m especially interested in how .Net Core works with Postgres on Linux. Most of then tutorials focus on using the entire MS stack.
- dreamer_soul 7y agoI use .net core by day and rails by night (side business) and I can honestly say .net core MVC is kind of influenced by rails (not a lot but like 30%). After more than a year using both I found more joy with rails. I find Rails gems and ecosystem to be more mature also ORM is friendlier since I felt more comfortable using active model than EF All of the above could be a personal preference since I worked on rails for a longer time. At the end of the day I got to an end product with both However I use .net core with MSSQL and on a Windows machine.
- nurettin 7y agoI've used rails back in the 3.2 days and after 7-8 years I still can't find the simplicity of rails in .net core and I really wish it was the case. I'll bet getting a rails 6.0 project from first scaffold to fully working site with admin interface and login system would take just one night of work without really remembering anything. With .net core, no idea how long. I saw some code generation commands for the most recent versions, so maybe there is some hope for .net core.
- keithnz 7y ago.net core works fine with postgres. Though I tend to use Dapper rather than Entity framework. I just use .net core as a REST backend / host for a vue front end. There's always a bunch of pros and cons to comparing languages and frameworks, I'll just say neither are really going to hold you back from doing anything.
- lotyrin 7y agoI find Rails projects often grow larger than the formalisms available in Ruby provide for, and I tend to find myself missing types even in fairly tiny projects. I look forward to Ruby 3 type annotations, and to the continuation of a long history of Rails setting the developer-experience standard for projects in other ecosystems.