Comment by FooBarWidget | Hacker News Reader

Comment by FooBarWidget | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm going to disagree with you there. First, apart from the ActionCable dependencies, Rails is already very modular. Starting from version 3 you can cherry-pick exactly what you want and don't want. For example, I have a couple of Rails apps that don't use the database, so they don't load ActiveRecord. See also nateberkopec's comment on disabling ActionCable.

Second, I find Rails to still be the most productive web framework. Removing every last bit of redundancy is nice, but it isn't going to save me that much. Maybe it'll save me a couple tens of MBs of disk space, and a couple of MBs of RAM per process. But if that costs me a few hours of work, it isn't worth it. Disk space costs next to nothing and RAM is cheap. Maybe optimizing that makes sense if you're Facebook, but most people are not.

Every time I use Node.js, Sinatra, etc I find myself wasting time around the most basic things, e.g. directory structures, database migrations, logging, etc.

> Removing every last bit of redundancy is nice, but it isn't going to save me that much. Maybe it'll save me a couple tens of MBs of disk space, and a couple of MBs of RAM per process. But if that costs me a few hours of work, it isn't worth it.

I don't care about the disk space and RAM at all, but every additional C extension (like EventMachine) means one more dependency that can break when I update a) my OS or compiler, b) Ruby, c) Rubygems, d) Bundler or e) Rails. Most of these updates have to be installed immediately for security reasons. I absolutely love Ruby as a language, but with Rails I feel I spend half my time in the terminal, trying to fix `gem install` incantations just to keep things running :(

I guess it depends on how active development is on your project. My feeling is Rails is only suitable for actively developed projects, if you are building a small project and then handing off to a client without a budget for maintenance than Rails is worse than probably anything else (except arguably Node) in terms of long-term stability. But if your project is actively developed the gem upgrade dance is not too bad.

What are the alternatives?

- actively developed framework -> upgrade fun

- not actively developed framework -> security issues, trouble hiring devs, missing features, et cetera

- no framework, (also known as roll your own) -> much harder for new team to come up to speed on the code base

I contend that the first is the best of the bad choices.

I agree, if you're not capable of ongoing maintenance then you are doomed with all custom software. However I expect a PHP or Java framework to generally require less maintenance.

web2py is quite good. Still runs stuff from many years ago, almost no security issues, does a lot out of the box. Bit of a job to make it work with websockets I'll give you.

Seriously? Cause I had this small 'hand in' kind of project in my hands and saw it as a good opportunity to teach myself Rails. My daily job involves .NET development but that's not very exciting and learning something new was probably the most motivating thing when I accepted the offer. So your comment makes me feel kind of worried about my decision to go with Rails.

If you end up more than a version behind in Rails and your project is sizable, you're in for a special version of hell. Especially if you develop on Mac OS X, the dependency issues with things like libxml2 are especially painful.

See my reply to bryanlarsen... If there is no plan for skilled maintenance down the line then I always refer clients to hosted services like wordpress.com or squarespace. I used to do a lot of custom sites a decade ago with a mix of raw PHP, Drupal, Wordpress and Rails. Honestly it's all turned into a maintenance nightmare for people who didn't have "a guy" to call (I couldn't be this guy anymore after I joined my current startup). If you were determined to go down the custom route then I don't necessarily think Rails was wrong, but just that your client needs to understand up front that this will run for some amount of time and then inevitably need maintenance.

Yeah I'm in a similar situation as in I can be 'the guy' for now but eventually they'll need to find another developer to maintain the app. But what could have been a decent alternative for a webapp + db setup? I don't think wordpress is suitable for that kind of project.

Wordpress I consider to be the worst of the worst because A) it's a constant target of attacks and B) the hosted version at wordpress.com is much less headache (if you don't need heavy customizations).

The good news is that Rails is now mature, so the upgrade path tends to be easier than it was in the early days.

What? This is the least understandable gripe. Every time I launch a new version of ANYTHING you listed above, it comes in the form of a brand new server that swaps into the load balancer. Broken Ops isn't someone else's fault.

Before you can throw another server into the load balancer pool, you still have to get everything to compile & run on it - and on your development machine, if they aren't running the same OS.

I am not talking about `bundle update` on a production server :)

I cannot agree more with you. For me, Rails is a way to get things done fast. If you can follow all rails goodies, there aren't any other framework comparable. The way things just works is the main point for me.

But of course it doesn't fit everyone needs.

Yep, I'm in full agreement. I had to use ASP.NET MVC 5 for a project last month, and it was incredible how... coarse it was. I felt like I took five steps backward and found myself struggling with the most basic things.

For instance, there is no Devise equivalent. No modular authentication package that you can just plug in and configure in 15 mins. Horrible.

No modular authentication package that you can just plug in and configure in 15 mins.

http://www.asp.net/identity

https://github.com/brockallen/BrockAllen.MembershipReboot

Reply on news.ycombinator.com