Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephenr | Hacker News Reader

There was an article about a week ago that makes the claim that Rails is tailor-made for Basecamp.

This single comment absolutely confirms that point of view: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/25208#issuecomment-222...

View on HN

Lots of websites have those browser requirements. Many of them aren't written in Rails. Care to explain your "absolutely confirms" logic?

Lots of websites require a browser that was released in the last 2 1/2 years?

I think you're seeing the web through SV tinted glasses.

Sure, since all major browsers auto-update now. This has been a thing for years.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn531055.aspx

http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/56161/which-browsers...

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6557?hl=en

https://support.google.com/a/answer/33864?hl=en

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2... (notable exceoption for IE8, would love to know the reason)

etc.

Sure, DHH said it himself. Rails is for basecamp like apps. Whats the deal?

But is it "for Basecamp like apps". Or is it "for the Basecamp app"?

I honestly can't believe a back end framework has minimum supported browser requirements that are basically "use the latest or GTFO".

It is for "most web apps" because most web apps are like basecamp, and it isn't "use the latest or GTFO". It is "use the latest by default or add a single line to your gem file if you want to support older browsers."

Most web apps are only tested on the latest browsers anyway, even if they claim to support older browsers. This is true unless you have a very popular app and a very large team.

> Most web apps are only tested on the latest browsers anyway

I've worked in web/related fields for about 10 years now, and I've never worked on a project where "fuck it, the latest will do" has been acceptable.

Yeah, same here. This comment thread is bizarre. I've been writing web apps that serve an industry where users don't install their software but their IT department does on their behalf: hospitals, but schools and government agencies are very similar, as well. Many of these apps are required to support back to IE8. For better or worse, that is the world some of these apps must live in.

> This is true unless you have a very popular app and a very large team.

Or you have very important and lucrative clients in government, healthcare, or some other crusty large organization with horribly dated browsers they're not going to replace any time soon. That quickly makes you throw away the latest React-* solution and reach for jQuery, however much you rage inside.

Which is not true. Most frameworks have good support for legacy browsers.

And when some library fails in an old browser is always something so small that I end up making a PR and getting it fixed the same day.

It doesn't. jquery-ujs will still be there if you want it, but depending on jquery brings along a lot of baggage along with the legacy browser support it allows. This discussion is just about what the default should be, and I don't think its unreasonable these days to aim for modern browsers as a default for most sites.

Do you have a link to the article?

http://www.akitaonrails.com/2016/05/23/rails-has-won-the-ele...

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11757993

Rails is a joke and @dhh is only making it worse. I'm disgusted by his choices. A lot of good devs are moving away from it for several reasons.

For me, it was the amount of magic involved in everything. I'm just glad I gave up and moved onto other things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com