> The Rails style of speccing a model, migrations, and controller/serializer or graphql types feels overly verbose and repetitive. For the record, ActiveRecord

> The Rails style of speccing a model, migrations, and controller/serializer or graphql types feels overly verbose and repetitive. For the record, ActiveRecord models do not specify, for example, table schemas - they are loaded from the database in the runtime, and migrations are not really necessary - they provide schema versioning with a rollback possibility, something that AFAIK the databases don't usually offer. Rails (and Ruby) is actually so non-verbose and non-repetitive, that a lot of people is criticising it for the very reason, usually complaining about it being too "magical".