7 ms·

The most hilarious thing about this is how uncannily your claims mirror those that Rails had to deal with when it was new - people saw the easy-to-get-rolling-w

by misuba 13y ago

The most hilarious thing about this is how uncannily your claims mirror those that Rails had to deal with when it was new - people saw the easy-to-get-rolling-with scaffolds and assumed Rails couldn't make your app look like anything else. It took the better part of two years for people to stop saying so. The "smart, sensible people" condescendingly repeating "you need more than a _scaffold._" It was just as amazing then.

greendata 13y ago
I was thinking the same thing. There were literally the same arguments against rails in 2006-2008: - it won't scale - too much magic - it's is too opinionated. Only good to do things one way - it's ok. but only for toy apps - I can do that easily in X framework, language (php, java, and now rails) - these are just toy example. can you do anything "complex" The author says this is significantly cutting down on his dev time. He also mentions how meteor reduces context switching when developing. IMO those are signs of a very promising technology. I don't know if meteor will become practical or popular. All I know is if works and it's stupid, it's not stupid.
- hyperbovine 13y ago
  FWIW Rails did not scale well during that time period. (One word: Twitter.) I don't know what the situation is like now but performance was a serious issue with rails in the early days.
  - bluedino 13y ago
    What sites are going to have Twitter's scaling problems, though?
    - kazagistar 13y ago
      And more importantly, I am pretty sure most startups would gladly have twitter's scaling problems in exchange for being the next twitter.
    - hyperbovine 13y ago
      Admittedly very few, although I did run into performance issues on Rails sites handling orders of magnitude less traffic. It's an interesting use case though -- tough to imagine a simpler web app than circa-2006 Twitter. Tellingly, they ultimately threw up their hands and moved it all to Scala.

by misuba 13y ago

greendata 13y ago

I was thinking the same thing. There were literally the same arguments against rails in 2006-2008: - it won't scale - too much magic - it's is too opinionated. Only good to do things one way - it's ok. but only for toy apps - I can do that easily in X framework, language (php, java, and now rails) - these are just toy example. can you do anything "complex" The author says this is significantly cutting down on his dev time. He also mentions how meteor reduces context switching when developing. IMO those are signs of a very promising technology. I don't know if meteor will become practical or popular. All I know is if works and it's stupid, it's not stupid.

hyperbovine 13y ago
FWIW Rails did not scale well during that time period. (One word: Twitter.) I don't know what the situation is like now but performance was a serious issue with rails in the early days.
- bluedino 13y ago
  What sites are going to have Twitter's scaling problems, though?
  - kazagistar 13y ago
    And more importantly, I am pretty sure most startups would gladly have twitter's scaling problems in exchange for being the next twitter.
  - hyperbovine 13y ago
    Admittedly very few, although I did run into performance issues on Rails sites handling orders of magnitude less traffic. It's an interesting use case though -- tough to imagine a simpler web app than circa-2006 Twitter. Tellingly, they ultimately threw up their hands and moved it all to Scala.