This must be a god level troll post.
The worst code I've ever seen by a country mile though was a huge Python 2 code base written on an old version of Tornado circa 2012, a library that basically hacked the Python language to get code to run asynchronously, but you had to contort yourself into knots to get it. You couldn't just call other async functions/methods, you had to `yield func()` when calling them. To return from a function, you couldn't use `return` you had to throw an exception of type Tornado.Return. Absolutely insane way to write code.
Then all the business logic written on top of this bizarre framework was terrible. Half of the code broke the rules I just mentioned but still half-worked sometimes, but would perform terribly or have mysterious problems.
One of my greatest accomplishments was getting it all to Python3 then onto more sane async-style code.
> there is no good work
> total lack of discipline
> impossible to build
This level of absolutism is problematic for a couple of reasons. Firstly it's ambiguous: a "total" lack of discipline would entail never releasing anything. This is clearly inaccurate, and the reader is left guessing what level of discipline is implied. Secondly, without more detail, most will assume exaggeration, given that RoR sees significant commercial use. You haven't provided compelling reasons to trust your judgement over anyone else's, so users are well-justified in raising counter-examples from their experience.
You also come off as dismissive of opinions and lived experiences that differ from your own; suggesting that anyone who disagrees is a "devotee", and that concrete counter-examples are meaningless one-offs. Having been on the sharp end of this dismissiveness myself, it mostly acts to drag the discussion down. Like, fair enough, maybe you're incredibly experienced, you want to make the world a better place by passing on your wisdom, and you're tired of dealing with half-baked takes. But belittling your fellow users is not helping. And again, from my own experience, you can be quick to say that a take is half-baked even when it aligns with scholarly opinion.
I don't really see why I should take that sort of thing very seriously. Do you?
I also realize the insult you didn't quite offer, but while there are grounds for anyone with a Ph.D. to offer me offense, breadth of knowledge is really none of them. You are an expert specialist and I respect that as it deserves, which is less than you imagine but more than you fear.
That is your choice, of course. But this is what I mean about not taking you seriously. No remotely reasonable person could possibly believe anyone competent to participate in Hacker News and be able also to honestly claim to be intimidated by someone taking an impatient tone in mere discourse on the relative merits of programming languages, in a context where I am the one whose identity is known.
Such a transparent lie would ill befit a child of five, and whatever axe you have here to grind, the way you go about it is just embarrassing. Your critique, such as it was, has been submitted, received, and evaluated as ill founded. You have no further business with me.
We seem to be having an argument that you started, inasmuch as I was not actually in need of any explanation of the phenomenon I described; it does not bewilder at this late date when those with extensive social and professional investment in the waning Rails scene react badly to discussion of that wane. If the progress of that argument fails to satisfy, perhaps another interlocutor will give you a more enjoyable time.
Until then, you will either address any of the variety of substantive points raised earlier in discussion which you have carefully heretofore ignored, or you'll receive no further response from me. Not that I don't come here precisely for pointless disputation, but even my battered pride eventually scruples at this kind of pop-psychological pettifogging you so favor.
> I was asked for an opinion and I gave one. Don't make too much of it. Rails devotees can't stand hearing a bad word about their baby, they always make a fuss.
I quote my own initial comment here, unabridged and verbatim, for the sake of adjacency with the following question: Where in this do you find a complaint?
That's a substantive question, not merely a rhetorical one. I would characterize my tone in that quote accurately as dismissive and uncharitably as contemptuous. But for the way you've talked about it now at such length, I can conclude only that I gave a mistaken impression of uncomprehending dismay. I don't understand how that could be so, given I literally do proffer an explanation for the behavior I'm meant not to comprehend; that explanation might be inaccurate and attract criticism accordingly, but to behave as though required to piece things together de novo is unwarranted. It's inconsistent to argue both that I must not understand the effect I create and that I must set out to create it, don't you think? Yet that's pretty much where you seem to end up.
You having concluded otherwise, ie that there is some essential ignorance here on my part requiring your effort to redress, I therefore ask on what basis you so conclude - the better to avoid again wasting my time, and incidentally also someone else's, in such fashion as this. Good grief, if I could've corrected that misapprehension right up front, we could've dispensed with everything after, to no doubt mutual preference.
And if you'll forgive myself quoting myself from earlier in the conversation, one more time:
> Meanwhile detailed and substantive technical critiques provided by other users - critiques of the sort I learned a decade ago not to bother making - go totally ignored as I knew that they would.
Even where it would have offered an advantageous contrast to my supposed hyperbole et al, where do you see sweet reason having told? - when, that is, it comes to the substantive technical critiques of the sort I'm meant to be taken at fault for declining to provide. Those critiques are still being ignored, while you sit here days later still not yet disabused of the idea you are equipped to bandy words with me.
I am not, in short, arguing here with even remotely serious people, and I show them the treatment condign upon their behavior. To do otherwise would serve only to lampoon myself, instead of them. It isn't something I expect to see appreciated by my interlocutors, including you. Its audience, if any, lies elsewhere.
I don't think you're an idiot. I think you're a smug, self-satisfied, deliberately ignorant ratiocinator who rarely understands why he succeeds and never why he fails because he does not really know how to think, although he is very sure that he does. This is the only conversation you and I can have on this website that is interesting to me, at least until you demonstrate some potential otherwise, which by now you seem as unlikely desirous as capable of doing.
If you want to boil all that down to something easier to swallow, then you're welcome. And, yes, I'm well aware that "no u" is as available a response here as previously. Do you think it will avail you more now than then?