4 ms·
I'm not bashing ruby or something. I love ruby, I have been using ruby/rails since rails 0.9. Still using ruby with roda/sequel, and i think it is the best lang
by pampa 6y ago
I'm not bashing ruby or something. I love ruby, I have been using ruby/rails since rails 0.9. Still using ruby with roda/sequel, and i think it is the best language to rapidly prototype and explore ideas.
But the reality is, that all the interesting and cool stuff is happening somewhere else now. Ruby is still a great language, but the active community outside rails is shrinking and the creativity isnt there anymore. People prefer to explore novel ideas in different languages now - rust, go, elixir etc, even if they do ruby for a living.
And rails is showing its age too. Every rails project i encountered was a petrified spagetti monolyth that had to be broken up and refactored into smaller pieces.
- joelbluminator 6y agoNo argument with you there, Ruby / Rails is pretty boring by now. As someone who's looking for a stable stack I'm absolutely fine with that.
- RandoHolmes 6y agoNo framework that acts like Rails should be considered a stable stack. If the answer to the question of "will it be supported in 5 years" is no, it can never be considered a "stable stack".
- joelbluminator 6y agoCan you clarify? I don't see what's so unstable about Rails. Probably webpacker was the biggest change in Rails 6 and that's not mandatory.
- RandoHolmes 6y agoIf I write an application in asp.net core it will continue functioning on the most recent version of .net core and asp.net core 5 years from now. If I do the same thing on RoR it will not, guaranteed. I've lost count of the number of times I've gotten a new client and had them on a web framework that was EOL, on a version of the language that was EOL, and on an OS that was EOL (because they couldn't get the EOL language/framework running on a modern OS). Anytime you use something like RoR you're automatically taking on a higher maintenance burden because you MUST upgrade or you'll find yourself in a spot where you're trying to decide if you want to rewrite or pull it up to the newest version. No part of that description screams stability.
- joelbluminator 6y agoOK, stability is relative. Compared to Node / Elixir Rails is still pretty stable. I'd put it with stacks like Laravel / Django. ASP.net probably changes less, I agree. But .net core was a huge change though, kind of a new framework right? new runtime even.
- AlchemistCamp 6y agoI have an Elixir app from four years ago that still runs with no issues, even on the current version. Can you elaborate? There's no plan to ever have a v2.0.
- joelbluminator 6y agoI don't have any experience with Elixir / Pheonix. From comments I read, even things like deployment change frequently in Elixir, and major libraries are created or abandoned. It's just still a very new ecosystem. In 5-10 years I'm sure the rate of change will decline. Then there is a stack like Node where constant change seems to be just part of the culture. Rails changes too, but not as much.
- RandoHolmes 6y agoElixir compiles and runs on BEAM, which is a technology that's roughly 34 years old. I think most elixir projects are on Phoenix, and while I can't speak too much about the speed of that project, the poster you're responding too has clearly stated they have an app that's 4 years old and running just fine so I have to believe it's not as much of an issue as you think.
- joelbluminator 6y agoBased on the one comment from the one guy - talking about one app that might be not even Phoenix - it's definitely not an issue.