6 ms·

"I toyed with Sidekiq.js but decided to kill that idea real quick because, as we all know, JavaScript is terrible" This is why I love the ruby community, so mu

"I toyed with Sidekiq.js but decided to kill that idea real quick because, as we all know, JavaScript is terrible" This is why I love the ruby community, so much sense :)

rektide 4y ago
From the JS community, this is sadly the level of snark we expect. It doesn't have to be like this. Your community tried to be better once. Have you forgotten? https://jasonfleetwoodboldt.com/courses/stepping-up-rails/matz-is-nice-and-so-we-are-nice/ https://jasonfleetwoodboldt.com/courses/stepping-up-rails/ma...
- jack_riminton 4y ago
  The other thing I like about the ruby community is the sense of humour
  - rektide 4y ago
    At others expense tbough? Is this the form of merriment we want? Gl;hf.
- pmarreck 4y ago
  You act as if some percentage less than 100% of Ruby users have extensive experience with JS as well... OK, maybe it's only, say, 96% of Ruby users, or 100% of Rails users at least
  - rektide 4y ago
    See like, this isn't constructive maligning at all, it's more undirected blanket unniceness. It costs nothing to actually put down a reason for being upset, versus having totally generic downputs. Very few things are truly rotten to the core, most bad things have some bad aspects but could be much better if ___. If something is rotten to the core the central articles of faith for why that's so should be declared. Plenty of Ruby folks have gone on to do great friendly Rails ish JS works. Ember.js is very batteries included, tries to show that yes all the potential is there to pave a nice well integrated happy-path system. To assume misery seems unreasonable; many have done fine. I think we have a real obligation to do better to ourselves & one another than to foster shallow prejudices. Trump in his April 11th Tucker Carlson interview was asked why he thought Dems weren't worried about nuclear weapons. "That's because they don't understand life. That's because they don't understand what it is that you have to understand." This is an irrefutable claim. There's no point to start discussing here, no possibility that the other side might change or have some nuances. Let's not do this. Let's rise to higher places where we take real appraising concerned looks at things, rather than just dismiss stuff out of hand. We don't even have to be nice, but let's at least strive to be somewhat useful.
    - jack_riminton 4y ago
      I think you're taking this way too seriously, it was just a blogger having a little lighthearted jab
      - rektide 4y ago
        Both agree in this case with Mike's right to fun, but also, I feel like the idea of lighthearted jabs has become a steady stream of blows. I said elsewhere: > Context also matters. Conversationally Mike's words could be an amusing wink & grin quip. I can see that. On paper, & seeing it repeated with the same reckless unnuanced antipathy, it lacks the personal connection & feels indicative of a general attitude situation that is quite prevalent. "Don't get so upset it's just a joke" is sometimes indeed a legit statement, sometimes we do take things too seriously & need to be reminded. But when the light jabs keep coming, when there's so rarely an attempt to ever bring both parties into the laughing, when it's always jokes at expense, the action whatever it's intent becomes part of a larger behavior that is more than a lighthearted jab. How many folks would stand up and say, no, there is no pattern of behavior about JS receiving short shift put downs? Do folks think there is no issue? How above board Vs how trashy do we think we've gotten with how programmer culture especially those parts that don't like it treats JS? What other parts of programmer culture endure repeated joke making at their expense today?
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > How many folks would stand up and say, no, there is no pattern of behavior about JS receiving short shift put downs? Do folks think there is no issue? If you identify with JavaScript so strongly that you'll go over to message boards and rend your garments when you see people making fun of it, and you consider it a big problem that you have to do this so often... maybe consider whether there are some faults in JavaScript that lead it to attract a steady stream of mockery? > What other parts of programmer culture endure repeated joke making at their expense today? All of them. Programmers are an unpopular group.
        4y ago
- brigandish 4y ago
  Matz is nice but that culture's definitely not coming back, anymore than the kind of fun and curiosity that _why brought to us. Maybe it's inevitable as communities grow and people taste success? Regardless, it's probably better if we leave room for little jokes with each other.
  - rektide 4y ago
    As someone who quite likes js & our wild teaming ecosystem a lot, I can also say: we definitely deserve some/mamy jokes too. No one's wrong on that. (jokes are good!) I wish they felt like they had some punchlines though. No one ever bothers to make the JS world laugh along. We know it's wild here (Come play! So much fun freedom!). It comes off more like a beat down. Context also matters. Conversationally Mike's words could be an amusing wink & grin quip. I can see that. On paper, & seeing it repeated with the same reckless unnuanced antipathy, it lacks the personal connection & feels indicative of a general attitude situation that is quite prevalent. Again I think there's plenty of valid negativities in js, but looking at the distribution of where folks fall on the alignment chart when they talk about JS issues, it concerns me how lopsidedly & with what casual acceptance folks tend towards the scariest boxes of the chart. To me we are all in the challenge of making computing better together, & we can help ourselves by helping others.
- danielrhodes 4y ago
  There seems to be an ever-present high-level of defensiveness from the Ruby community over JS/React. Rails has had a profound impact on web development, promoting fast starts and shipping quickly. Companies like Shopify and Twitter benefited greatly from this. But the framework is 18 years old. The web that it was created for has changed significantly.
  - ghiculescu 4y ago
    It’s changing back. SPAs are on the way out. Check back in 5 or 10 years - Rails will still be here.
  - bradgessler 4y ago
    I think there’s two reasons for that: 1. When deploying a Rails app, the JS asset compilation is always the slowest part and is the most likely to break. It doesn’t help that Rails has made a complete mess of JS assets, which I wrote about at https://fly.io/ruby-dispatch/making-sense-of-rails-assets/ https://fly.io/ruby-dispatch/making-sense-of-rails-assets/ 2. For people who had to ship a Rails API + JS SPA, their workflow felt slow, brittle, and cumbersome. It wasn’t their imagination either—testing the stack required integration tests, which are always slow. Maintaining an HTTP API to talk to the SPA is additional effort that’s not needed, which Hotwired has demonstrated clearly. I still think Rails has a lot of fuel left in its tank, thanks to Hotwired and the big companies behind it, but I agree the “Rails is the most productive framework” gets way overplayed. It was def “most productive” 18 years ago, but most other modern frameworks took notice, caught up, and have even surpassed Rails in a lot of ways. The Ruby runtime leaves a lot to desire when you compare it to runtimes like Elixir/BEAM, Go, etc. I also think Rails has a terrible view layer, but most folks don’t quite understand that that means yet. This is something I’m working on at the moment.
    - danielrhodes 4y ago
      The Rails view layer used to be quite nice at its peak. Way better than many of the alternatives. That you could execute actual code inside a view was just magical.
  - 4y ago
camdenreslink 4y ago
I wouldn’t be so sure. They invented coffeescript in response to not liking JavaScript.

"I toyed with Sidekiq.js but decided to kill that idea real quick because, as we all know, JavaScript is terrible" This is why I love the ruby community, so much sense :)

rektide 4y ago

From the JS community, this is sadly the level of snark we expect. It doesn't have to be like this. Your community tried to be better once. Have you forgotten? https://jasonfleetwoodboldt.com/courses/stepping-up-rails/matz-is-nice-and-so-we-are-nice/ https://jasonfleetwoodboldt.com/courses/stepping-up-rails/ma...

jack_riminton 4y ago
The other thing I like about the ruby community is the sense of humour
- rektide 4y ago
  At others expense tbough? Is this the form of merriment we want? Gl;hf.
pmarreck 4y ago
You act as if some percentage less than 100% of Ruby users have extensive experience with JS as well... OK, maybe it's only, say, 96% of Ruby users, or 100% of Rails users at least
- rektide 4y ago
  See like, this isn't constructive maligning at all, it's more undirected blanket unniceness. It costs nothing to actually put down a reason for being upset, versus having totally generic downputs. Very few things are truly rotten to the core, most bad things have some bad aspects but could be much better if ___. If something is rotten to the core the central articles of faith for why that's so should be declared. Plenty of Ruby folks have gone on to do great friendly Rails ish JS works. Ember.js is very batteries included, tries to show that yes all the potential is there to pave a nice well integrated happy-path system. To assume misery seems unreasonable; many have done fine. I think we have a real obligation to do better to ourselves & one another than to foster shallow prejudices. Trump in his April 11th Tucker Carlson interview was asked why he thought Dems weren't worried about nuclear weapons. "That's because they don't understand life. That's because they don't understand what it is that you have to understand." This is an irrefutable claim. There's no point to start discussing here, no possibility that the other side might change or have some nuances. Let's not do this. Let's rise to higher places where we take real appraising concerned looks at things, rather than just dismiss stuff out of hand. We don't even have to be nice, but let's at least strive to be somewhat useful.
  - jack_riminton 4y ago
    I think you're taking this way too seriously, it was just a blogger having a little lighthearted jab
    - rektide 4y ago
      Both agree in this case with Mike's right to fun, but also, I feel like the idea of lighthearted jabs has become a steady stream of blows. I said elsewhere: > Context also matters. Conversationally Mike's words could be an amusing wink & grin quip. I can see that. On paper, & seeing it repeated with the same reckless unnuanced antipathy, it lacks the personal connection & feels indicative of a general attitude situation that is quite prevalent. "Don't get so upset it's just a joke" is sometimes indeed a legit statement, sometimes we do take things too seriously & need to be reminded. But when the light jabs keep coming, when there's so rarely an attempt to ever bring both parties into the laughing, when it's always jokes at expense, the action whatever it's intent becomes part of a larger behavior that is more than a lighthearted jab. How many folks would stand up and say, no, there is no pattern of behavior about JS receiving short shift put downs? Do folks think there is no issue? How above board Vs how trashy do we think we've gotten with how programmer culture especially those parts that don't like it treats JS? What other parts of programmer culture endure repeated joke making at their expense today?
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > How many folks would stand up and say, no, there is no pattern of behavior about JS receiving short shift put downs? Do folks think there is no issue? If you identify with JavaScript so strongly that you'll go over to message boards and rend your garments when you see people making fun of it, and you consider it a big problem that you have to do this so often... maybe consider whether there are some faults in JavaScript that lead it to attract a steady stream of mockery? > What other parts of programmer culture endure repeated joke making at their expense today? All of them. Programmers are an unpopular group.
        4y ago
brigandish 4y ago
Matz is nice but that culture's definitely not coming back, anymore than the kind of fun and curiosity that _why brought to us. Maybe it's inevitable as communities grow and people taste success? Regardless, it's probably better if we leave room for little jokes with each other.
- rektide 4y ago
  As someone who quite likes js & our wild teaming ecosystem a lot, I can also say: we definitely deserve some/mamy jokes too. No one's wrong on that. (jokes are good!) I wish they felt like they had some punchlines though. No one ever bothers to make the JS world laugh along. We know it's wild here (Come play! So much fun freedom!). It comes off more like a beat down. Context also matters. Conversationally Mike's words could be an amusing wink & grin quip. I can see that. On paper, & seeing it repeated with the same reckless unnuanced antipathy, it lacks the personal connection & feels indicative of a general attitude situation that is quite prevalent. Again I think there's plenty of valid negativities in js, but looking at the distribution of where folks fall on the alignment chart when they talk about JS issues, it concerns me how lopsidedly & with what casual acceptance folks tend towards the scariest boxes of the chart. To me we are all in the challenge of making computing better together, & we can help ourselves by helping others.
danielrhodes 4y ago
There seems to be an ever-present high-level of defensiveness from the Ruby community over JS/React. Rails has had a profound impact on web development, promoting fast starts and shipping quickly. Companies like Shopify and Twitter benefited greatly from this. But the framework is 18 years old. The web that it was created for has changed significantly.
- ghiculescu 4y ago
  It’s changing back. SPAs are on the way out. Check back in 5 or 10 years - Rails will still be here.
- bradgessler 4y ago
  I think there’s two reasons for that: 1. When deploying a Rails app, the JS asset compilation is always the slowest part and is the most likely to break. It doesn’t help that Rails has made a complete mess of JS assets, which I wrote about at https://fly.io/ruby-dispatch/making-sense-of-rails-assets/ https://fly.io/ruby-dispatch/making-sense-of-rails-assets/ 2. For people who had to ship a Rails API + JS SPA, their workflow felt slow, brittle, and cumbersome. It wasn’t their imagination either—testing the stack required integration tests, which are always slow. Maintaining an HTTP API to talk to the SPA is additional effort that’s not needed, which Hotwired has demonstrated clearly. I still think Rails has a lot of fuel left in its tank, thanks to Hotwired and the big companies behind it, but I agree the “Rails is the most productive framework” gets way overplayed. It was def “most productive” 18 years ago, but most other modern frameworks took notice, caught up, and have even surpassed Rails in a lot of ways. The Ruby runtime leaves a lot to desire when you compare it to runtimes like Elixir/BEAM, Go, etc. I also think Rails has a terrible view layer, but most folks don’t quite understand that that means yet. This is something I’m working on at the moment.
  - danielrhodes 4y ago
    The Rails view layer used to be quite nice at its peak. Way better than many of the alternatives. That you could execute actual code inside a view was just magical.
- 4y ago

camdenreslink 4y ago

I wouldn’t be so sure. They invented coffeescript in response to not liking JavaScript.