4 ms·
The attitude within your first paragraph is an excellent demonstration of the maintainability problems I'm talking about. Programmers five or ten years in the f
by PommeDeTerre 14y ago
The attitude within your first paragraph is an excellent demonstration of the maintainability problems I'm talking about. Programmers five or ten years in the future won't have much say about the software they're being asked or told to maintain. Telling them to just "not use Ruby" won't solve the maintenance issues they're facing while working on some Rails web app developed years earlier.
I'm sure you can find numerous blog posts out there describing the maintainability problems with Rails web apps. Google for them. The fact that you're looking for blog articles makes me think that you may have limited experience with large-scale software development projects, especially those spanning many years and development teams.
Have you ever worked on large, long-running C++ or Java projects, for instance? If you have, then it should be pretty obvious to you how inadequate the maintainability of Ruby code is. Ruby, and dynamic languages in general, lack much of the functionality that makes code maintainable after many years, or even decades. I really wish you did have this sort of experience, because I think it would make the maintenance issues more more obvious.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- phillmv 14y agoI'm asking you to explain why any of it is an issue, and to back it up with the comments of other people. I want to see people who have written "the fact that this project is in Ruby is the bane of my existence and here is why these problems would not have occurred in my language of choice". >lack much of the functionality that makes code maintainable after many years, or even decades. This is just FUD. LOL, what inherent property is this that makes it maintainable? Great trolling, btw.