Returning to Rails in 2026
markround.com
markround.com
Working with a large codebase with an untyped codebase is just a nightmare, even with powerful IDEs like RubyMine that are able to cover some of the paint points. I wonder how good Sorbet is these days, though, especially the RoR experience
Did you use AI? .. Nah I hand coded it.
I certainly wouldn’t want to go back to working in dynamic languages without typing on top. That takes too much brain power, I’m too old for that now.
I would say Sorbet seems more “basic” than something like Typescript. It handles function calls matching signatures, potential nulls, making sure properties actually exist, that kind of thing. Whereas TS can get quite abstract, and at times you’re fighting to convince it that a value actually is the type you say it is.
TS is very powerful and expressive, to the point that it’s possible to do computation within type code. I’m not convinced I always need that power, or that it’s always more help than hindrance.
> and at times you’re fighting to convince it that a value actually is the type you say it is.
Might just be allocating that brain power to the same task but calling it a different thing.
irb(main):005:0> Foo.new.method(:bar).source_location => ["tmp/test.rb", 5]
I vouched for your reply below, and to answer in the meantime:
Yes, it's runtime, but that only matters if your code can't be initialized without unacceptable side effects.
In which case you don't have a functioning test suite either, and have much larger problems.
Otherwise, just load the code you struggle to figure out into irb, or pry, or a simple test script, and print out source-location.
If that is impossible (aside from the fact that codebase is broken beyond all reason), the marginally harder solution is to use ruby-lsp[1] and look up the definitions.
This is only hard if you insist on refusing to use the available - and built in, in the case of source_location - tooling.
Loco follows up the Rails formula pretty closely, and makes easier to learn Rust by taking care of a load of boilerplate code.
It is surprising to me seeing the rust web backend scene; many libraries, server frameworks, and users, but they are all Flask-analogs, without the benefit of the reasonably-robust ecosystem Flask has. My suspicion is that people are using them for micro-services and not websites/webapps, but I haven't been able to get a straight answer on this about how people are using these tools. I.e. even though rust is my favorite overall language and see no reason it couldn't be used for web work, I still use Django.
Axos, Axum, Rocket, Diesel etc, are all IMO not in the same league as Django. My understanding is that addressing this is Loco's Raison d'etre.
Another aspect of the Rust web ecosystem: It's almost fully gone Async.
I'll say this, coding agents make the lack of a "batteries included" framework like rails or Django somewhat less daunting.
But "convention over code" and having a default structure / shape for projects is extremely helpful and you feel it when it's missing.
For my last small project I looked at Loco but ended up passing on it because I felt like adoption wasn't great yet. I really hope it takes off, though.
I think rust programers are more likely to want flask/rack than Django/rails.
Nowadays C# is anyways much more expressive than before. Meanwhile Ruby is still very slow.
Not to mention how poorly maintained are most Rails projects. People have been "vibe coding" forever.
A well-organized and maintained Rails app is great though. I'd definitely consider working with it again, but it really depends on what company it is.
But if someone is actually relying on literal true/false instead of truthiness, you now have a bug.
I say this as a Ruby evangelist and apologist, who deeply loves the language and who’s used it professionally and still uses it for virtually all of my personal projects.
I always liked Rich Hickey's point, that you should program on the inside the way you program on the outside. Over the wire you don't rely on types and make sure the entire internet is in type check harmony, it's on you to verify what you get, and that was what Alan Kay thought objects should do.
That's why I always find these complaints a bit puzzling. Yes in a dynamic language like Ruby, Python, Clojure, Smalltalk you can't impose global meaning, but you're not supposed to. If you have to edit countless of existing code just because some sender changed that's an indication you've ignored the principle of letting the recipient interpret the message. It shouldn't matter what someone else puts in a map, only what you take out of it, same way you don't care if the contents of the post truck change as long as your package is in it.
that's not a big deal, when we exchange generic information across networks we parse information all the time, in most use cases that's not an expensive operation. The gain is that this results in proper encapsulation, because the flipside of imposing meaning globally is that your entire codebase is one entangled ball, and as you scale a complex system, that tends to cost you more and more.
In the case of the OP where a program "breaks" and has to be recompiled every time some signature propagates through the entire system that is significant cost. Again if you think of a large scale computer network as an analog to a program, what costs more, parsing an input or rebooting and editing the entire system every time we add a field somewhere to a data structure, most consumers of that data don't care about?
this is how we got micro-services, which are nothing else but ways to introduce late binding and dynamism into static environments.
The goal is to do this parsing exactly once, at the system boundary, and thereafter keep the already-parsed data in a box that has "This has already been parsed and we know it's correct" written on the outside, so that nothing internal needs to worry about that again. And the absolute best kind of box is a type, because it's pretty easy to enforce that the parser function is the only piece of code in the entire system that can create a value of that type, and as soon as you do this, that entire class of problems goes away.
This idea is of using types whose instances can only be created by parser functions is known as Parse, Don't Validate, and while it's possible and useful to apply the general idea in a dynamically typed language, you only get the "We know at compile time that this problem cannot exist" guarantee if you use types.
You are only parsing once at the system boundary, but under the dynamic model every receiver is its own system boundary. Like the earlier comment pointed out, micro services emerged to provide a way to hack Kay's actor model onto languages that don't offer the dynamicism natively. Yes, you are only parsing once in each service, but ultimately you are still parsing many times when you look at the entire program as a whole. "Parse, don't validate" doesn't really change anything.
I'm not claiming that it can't be done that way, I'm claiming that it's better not to do it that way.
You could achieve security by hiring a separate guard to stand outside each room in your office building, but it's cheaper and just as secure to hire a single guard to stand outside the entrance to the building.
>micro services emerged to provide a way to hack Kay's actor model onto languages that don't offer the dynamicism natively
I think microservices emerged for a different reason: to make more efficient use of hardware at scale. (A monolith that does everything is in every way easier to work with.) One downside of microservices is the much-increased system boundary size they imply -- this hole in the type system forces a lot more parsing and makes it harder to reason about the effects of local changes.
Same thing, no? That is exactly was what Kay was talking about. That was his vision: Infinite nodes all interconnected, sending messages to each other. That is why Smalltalk was designed the way it was. While the mainstream Smalltalk implementations got stuck in a single image model, Kay and others did try working on projects to carry the vision forward. Erlang had some success with the same essential concept.
> I'm claiming that it's better not to do it that way.
Is it fundamentally better, or is it only better because the alternative was never fully realized? For something of modern relevance, take LLMs. In your model, you have to have the hardware to run the LLM on your local machine, which for a frontier model is quite the ask. Or you can write all kinds of crazy, convoluted code to pass the work off to another machine. In Kay's world, being able to access an LLM on another machine is a feature built right into the language. Code running on another machine is the same as code running on your own machine.
I'm reminded of what you said about "Parse, don't validate" types. Like you alluded to, you can write all kinds of tests to essentially validate the same properties as the type system, but when the language gives you a type system you get all that for free, which you saw as a benefit. But now it seems you are suggesting it is actually better for the compiler to do very little and that it is best to write your own code to deal with all the things you need.
Scaling different areas of an application is one thing. Being able to use different technology choices for different areas is another, even at low scale. And being able to have teams own individual areas of an application via a reasonably hard boundary is a third.
I never used Ruby, but Python code bases love mixing in strings that are actually enums and overloading functions that accept all kinds of types. You just had to hope that the documentation was correct to avoid a crash.
Java 1.7 to Python feels very freeing from all the boilerplate. Kotlin, or any other modern language with a well designed standard library, to Python just feels like a bunch of extra mental work and test to write to just avoid brackets.
Also, every enterprise rails app I've seen (seven, to date) has been really poorly written/architected in a way that other backends just weren't. Even the fairly new ones felt like legacy code already.
I tried sorbet a couple of times and totally get why it’s useful but imo it’s not just lacking (e.g. compared with what can be done with TS or even a simple type system like golang) but it also removes all the fun parts of ruby / rails.
At least in Python (as a comparison example), imports are only available in the module doing the importing - it's more explicit. You'd have to really work to get the same "everything all at once" as Rails has.
Why would anyone ever choose ruby, python, etc when you don’t need to write it?
These languages are undoubtedly dead as of now. Python may live on in ML for a bit but probably not much longer
I’m not into RoR, because I was mainly PHP rescuer in the beginning of my career, but they both are just problem solvers. Sit down, write minimal (in case of PHP not so cool looking) code and proceed to next task.
Honestly, breath of fresh air.
It's the closest I've come to that old school "in the box" desktop development experience you used to get from building desktop software with Visual Studio or IntelliJ IDEA or NetBeans or Eclipse or any of the other IDEs of the 90s/00s (I never used Delphi or VB but I imagine in some sense they were even moreso than the ones I've listed, which are the ones I used), only it's web development.
For me web development has always felt like a frustrating ordeal of keeping track of 10,000 moving parts that add noise and cognitive load and distract you from fixing the actual problems you're interested in solving. This means the baseline ancillary workload is always frustratingly high. I.e., there's too much yak-shaving.
Whereas Rails seems to drag that all the way down to a level where it feels more similar to the minimal yak-shaving needed to (at least superficially) build, run, and distribute desktop software. Not that this is without its challenges, because every deployment environment is a little different in the desktop world, but the day to day developer experience is much lower friction that modern web development in general.
Also, no sodding TypeScript to deal with. I hate TypeScript: an ugly, verbose, boilerplatey abomination that takes one of the nicest and most fun features of JavaScript (duck typing) and simply bins it off. Awful.
All right, fine: TypeScript uses structural typing which is if you like a specialisation of duck typing but, whatever, compared with JS's unadorned duck typing it still leads to embellishment of the resulting code in ways that I don't enjoy.
I've been using TypeScript across different projects at different companies since 2013 and I've absolutely given it an honest go... but I just don't like it. I even allowed its use at a mid-size company where I was CTO because it fit well with React and a sensible person picks their battles, but I still didn't like it.
I'm now in the very privileged position where I don't have to use it, and I don't even have to allow it a foot in the door.
Now I'm sure that won't last forever, and I'll have to work with TypeScript again. I'll do it - because I'm a professional - but I'm still entitled to an opinion, and that opinion remains that I don't like the language. After 13 years of use I feel pretty confident my opinion has settled and is unlikely to change. I find it deeply unenjoyable to work with. BUT the plus side is that in the era of LLMs perhaps I no longer need to worry so much about have to deal with it directly when it eventually does impinge upon my professional life again.
Testing is more expensive up front and in maintenance than type annotations. A test suite comprehensive enough to replace type annotations would have an ass load of assertions that just asserted variable type; if you were involved in early pre-TS Node, you remember those test suites and how they basically made code immutable.
> (2) it regularly missed deeper problems
This is a skill issue. If your types do not match runtime behavior and you choose to blame the programming language rather than your usage of it, that's on you. There are a lot of unsafe edges to TS, but a diligent and disciplined engineer can keep them isolated and wrapped in safe blocks. Turn off `any`, turn on all the maximal strictness checks, and see if your code still passes, because if what you said about infinite scroll is true, it won't.
And one of its many problems is that it tries quite hard to pass itself off as not having those unsafe edges which, ironically, makes it easier to get tripped up by them.
Yeah, I agree, and the thing is, you're going to write automated tests whether you're developing in JavaScript or TypeScript so the extra cruft of TypeScript seems even less worthwhile.
The argument I've heard people put forward is that JS is fine for small projects or a couple of developers but doesn't scale to large projects or teams. I don't know how large large is, but I've worked on a project with around 30 devs where the front-end was all JavaScript and everyone was touching it and, sure, that project had some problems, but the root cause of those problems wasn't using JavaScript.
Could you elaborate on that?
The troubles arise when you get to huge codebases or complicated frontend patterns that aren't ideal for SSR / hotwire.
Also, it's impossible to separate Rails from DHH, whose xenophobic politics are unfortunately front and center.
> There’s just this minimal translation required between what I’m thinking and what I type
That's really the essence of Ruby for me.
There are endless tools available, and quick internet dopamine feedback loops, but almost no wisdom.
Give it a few more years and more inflation, and the remaining 35% of millennials will get out there to find their first jobs, and then the impact will be even worse.
The premise that you get meaningful efficiencies from JavaScript on the back-end just because you have to use it on the front-end has been pretty thoroughly debunked at this point. Instead you mostly get a larger blast radius when the front-end ecosystem has its monthly identity crisis. OP's "stacks-du-jour" and programming language "flavour of the month" framing is exactly right. A shocking amount of web software architecture is just following fashion trends dressed up as technical decision-making.
Most of the churn in tech stack isn't driven by engineering requirements, it's driven by résumé optimization and Hacker News anxiety. Rails has quietly been powering serious businesses the whole time. Does anyone think NPM's 3.1 million packages enable more functionality than RubyGems' 190,000 packages?
In late 2025 we decided to migrate one of them to Inertia. Public facing pages is already done, and we're 80% through migrating the logged in area (it's a huge app). We choose Vue.js.
It's amazing how powerful this stack is and how little you have to change in the backend.
Because there are fewer and fewer ruby/rails people available.
It is the simplest explanation - and the one that makes the most sense, too.
It means that there are many more people using NPM.
That means more users. More users is almost always better, for any language.
Also many of those gems on rubygems are dead since decades, literally. Probably also for NPM. We can not just compare the numbers without analysis.
Right now, I would rather use Go with a simple framework, or even without one. With Go, it's so easy just to copy the binary over.
Do I need a library to sort an array? The 5 years ago option is going to be the more likely choice. A library updated 2 weeks ago is highly suspicious.
Do I need a library to provide timezone information? The 2 weeks ago option, unquestionably. The 5 years ago option will now be woefully out of date.
Also breaking APIs should be regarded very poorly. It isn’t. But it should be.
One-off libraries that don't have a runtime dependency on Rails are typically very low-maintenance. You can mostly leave them alone (even a security vulnerability is unlikely to be exploitable for how you're using one of these, as often user input isn't even getting through to them). For instance a gem you install to communicate with the stripe API is not typically going to break when you upgrade Rails. Or adding httparty to make some API requests to other services.
Then there are libraries that are really framework extensions, like devise for authentication or rspec for testing. These are tightly coupled to Rails, sometimes to its private internals, and you get all sorts of nasty compatibility issues when the framework changes. You have to upgrade Rails itself because you really do need to care about security support at that level, even for a relatively small company, so you can end up in a situation where leaving these other dependencies to fester makes upgrading Rails very hard.
(I run a startup that's a software-enabled service to upgrade old Rails apps).
Thankfully, updating to a new Django version is usually simple. It does not require many code changes.
But finding small bugs after an update is hard, unless you have very good test coverage. New versions of middleware/Django plugins often behave slightly differently, and it's hard to keep track of all the changes when you have so many dependencies.
You just keep up as you go, as long as you keep things close to the framework it's fine.
He said "Updating a project that was started 5-6 years ago takes a lot of time."
The answer is the same in both cases: acquire some discipline and treat maintenance with the respect it deserves.
Obviously there are some dependencies that you cannot easily avoid (like the things you mention). On the other hand there is a lot off stuff used that is not that hard to avoid - things like wrappers for REST APIs are often not really necessary.
In the past month I migrated a 20 year old Python project (2.6, using the pylons library) to modern Python in 2 days. Runs 40-80 times faster too.
But I learned to do that by working on codebases that were the opposite.
Not many frameworks have been thriving that long, and there's good reason.
It packs everything, is tidy and productive, with a pleasant language to read and write.
In the latest Stackoverflow survey, it's back at the "top 5 of desired stacks to use for next project" over a decade after its inception !
Give it a try.
So everyone just stop worrying what everyone else thinks or seems to think and just use the right tools for you and get on with it
Before you get to a scale where Rails become a problem you need to have a product that drives a pretty significant engagement, that’s where most fail.
I don't understand...Rails does not replace a HA PostgreSQL cluster or Redis, they are orthogonal. Why would you not have to think about them?
edit: Django was release in 2005
Django had private use before then, but rails was also in private use before it was released.
Django's was July 2005: https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2005/jul/15/chipy/
Oh, where did you find that?
Only info I could find was that Rails is at rank 10 in the Web Frameworks category for Admired vs. Desired in the 2025 survey: https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2025/technology/#2-web-frame....
I moved on, not because Rails failed me, but because the things I started building next (Streaming infra, APIs behind proxies, lots of concurrent HTTP work, infrastructure tooling, AI/ML) just fit better in other languages. I pick tools by the problem, not loyalty.
What I notice in this thread is a lot of "Rails vs X" framing when the real answer is boring: use Rails (if you like the vision and Ruby) when the complexity is in the data model and business logic. Use something else when it's in concurrency or infrastructure. The one-person-framework pitch is real, but it's for a specific shape of problem.
Also: God i miss writing Ruby, its a fantastically and beautiful language.
Also: Blast from the past: Ruby is a great DSL for Rails.
Good advice that I keep trying to adopt myself, but I have to confess a large personal bias for languages that I like, even if it keeps me from certain classes of problem (I like Ruby, though).
What did you move onto for those next things you started building?
Can you expand on why you found it so appealing or "holy crap, this is awesome" things I should look at first ?
Elixir is also a very cool language in a lot of ways. I wouldn't go all in on Elixir/Phoenix, but that's because there's not a huge demand for it, at least where I reside. I would 100% consider it for some smaller projects though, if I stood between that and Rails, and I wouldn't mind having to get more comfortable with Elixir.
Edit: I haven't used Rails 8, and haven't followed the ecosystem since a bit before, so not sure how this feels nowadays. I *really* enjoy Rails backend though, but the frontend stuff never quite clicked.
It has been absolutely wonderful building this with Elixir/Phoenix. Obviously any codebase in any language can become a tangled mess, but in 7 years we have never felt the language or framework were in our way.
On the contrary: I think Elixir (and Phoenix) have enabled us to build things in a simple and elegant way that would have taken more code, more infrastructure, and more maintenance in other languages/frameworks.
Elixir is a functional programming language based on the "BEAM", the Erlang VM. We'll get back to the BEAM in a moment, but first: the functional programming aspect. That definitely took getting used to. I remember being _very_ confused in the first few weeks. Not because of the syntax (Elixir is quite Ruby-esque) but because of the "flow" of code.
However, when it clicked, it was immediately clear how easy it becomes to write elegant and maintainable code. There is no global state in Elixir, and using macros for meta-programming are generally not encouraged. That means it becomes very easy to reason about a module/function: some data comes in, a function does something with that data, and some data comes out. If you need to do more things to the data, then you chain multiple functions in a "pipe", just like how you chain multiple bash tools on the command line.
The Phoenix framework applies this concept to the web, and it works very well, because if you think about it: a browser opening a web page is just some data coming in (an HTTP GET request), you do something with that data (render a HTML page, fetch something from your database, ...) and you return the result (in this case as an HTTP response). So the flow of a web request, and your controllers in general, becomes very easy to reason about and understand.
Coming back to the BEAM, the Erlang VM was originally written for large scale (as in, country size) telephony systems by Ericsson. The general idea is that everything in the BEAM is a "process", and the BEAM manages processes and their dependencies/relationships for you. So your database connection pool is actually a bunch of BEAM processes. Multi-threading is built-in and doesn't need any setup or configuration. You don't need Redis for caching, you just have a BEAM process that holds some cache in-memory. A websocket connection between a user and your application gets a separate process. Clustering multiple web servers together is built into the BEAM, so you don't need a complex clustering layer.
The nice thing is that Elixir and Phoenix abstract most of this away from you (although it's very easy to work with that lower layer if you want to), but you still get all the benefits of the BEAM.
The BEAM itself runs multiple OS threads (it can use all cores of the CPU if so desired), and the BEAM scheduler gives chunks of processing time to each BEAM process.
This gives you parallel processing out of the box, and because of the networking capabilities of the BEAM, also allows you to scale out over multiple machines in a way that's transparent to BEAM processes.
When it comes to web development specifically, what really got me hooked, was LiveView from the Phoenix framework. It keeps a persistant WebSocket connection to the client which it uses to push DOM updates directly. Instead of the usual request/response cycle on the client side, the server holds the state and just pushes the diff to the browser. It just made so much sense.
I still love and use ruby a ton for scripting, and still reach for Sinatra for super simple server needs, but Phoenix is my go-to stack these days.
I've also found the Elixir community to be amazing in the same ways the Ruby community is/was. It's not all roses, for example there's not as many libraries out there. Distribution is also not awesome so for example I currently use ruby or rust when writing CLIs. But for anything distributed (especially web) Phoenix is amazing.
This is a self plug, but I did a conference talk introducing Ruby veterans to Elixir/Phoenix some years ago. It's probably aged a bit, but should still be pretty accurate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPWMBDTPMkQ
The original conference talk is here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSoz7q37KGE), though the made-for-youtube version above is better because it's slightly updated, and I didn't run out of time :-)
I gave RoR a try last year, and so far I'm at the same level I was with the other projects but I actually enjoy programming the project after the PoC phase. Maybe because third time's a charm? Maybe because I know what I need to do? Who knows! But RoR fits in that idiom.
Just to note, its a really boring app thats been done before (odeva.app)
I think once you're deep into a project, you of course know the features needed and the constraints and you'll be more efficient the next time around.
I think the challenge is to keep working on your old legacy projects.
Plus Symfony is quite flexible on how you want to organize your code. Modular monolith, monolith, DDD, microservices, "junior developer just setting up controllers and entities".
however if your app doesn't fit the standard crud pattern you end just fiddling with a lot of things that you shouldn't and in that case I recommend Django which provides enough flexibility while providing a good base. There's less magic in Django
I'm not trying to be glib. The thing that seemed magic to me at that time was all the scaffolding that Rails provided with a few simple commands, making it possible to quickly build something that let the user authenticate and enter and display data. Sure, Ruby itself and the culture around it back then was also great and will always have a place in my heart. But the whole convention-over-configuration and scaffolding thing, that was what I liked so much about it, and I never found that in any other language/framework combo in a way that felt as smooth.
But now, I use AI for scaffolding, and for my side-projects often never have to touch code.
So why would I choose something for a CRUD application that might give me headaches down the road, when there's a possibility that the app might morph into something less conventional, when I could use *any* language/framework that's not as rigid and have the scaffold be built by AI?
I get it if you enjoy actually writing code. But I don't quite get the benefits if the goal is to have something working quickly and be able to potentially build it out to something that is not served that well by RoR.
I'm a fanboi, so I am biased, but Rails is still pretty great in 2026 for general business purposes.
Go and Rust fill in lots of gaps for more serious performance stuff.
Having the productivity of Ruby + the static typing and LSP integrations is a wonderful combination. Sure, it might be less aesthetic than some might like, but at least in my experience, it works very well in practice and supports most of the needs I have from a type system for writing and understanding conventional software.
I'm rooting for further developments in this space because I love language and systems that can leverage it's strengths and layering on a type system makes it a very formidable technology for building real world products.
I have not used Rails in a few years, but I can also say that the Sorbet typing support for the framework is definitely there too -- to great credit to the folks at Shopify allowing users of the framework to benefit from this tooling.
I would happily work on a Rails system today too. It's an amazing testament to the community how the design has been able to continue to develop to meet the needs of the many developers building with it up to this point. I hope more people feel the same joy I do discovering the kinds of things they can make with the language and frameworks like Rails.
With the amazing advancements with the AI tools we have now the only real limits are with how big our imaginations and ambitions can get.
In part because for a modern frontend dx you will need hot reload, bundling, etc. But even if you make an SPA and only use eg .NET for an API, using something like OpenAPI to share the schema is a subpar solution. There's really nothing as good as sharing TS types across your whole app(s).
You don't know how happy I was to read this... I thought I had a serious problem with getting distracted with my "projects" but it seems this is much more normal than I thought ;-)
However, modern day JS frameworks don't care about this at all. Most of them love flaunting about their raw performance numbers. Security? Fuck that. Not even basic form CSRF protection. A lot of times, there is not even SQL injection prevention in them.
Compound this with someone who just vibe codes their app on top of these frameworks - that's how you end up getting hacked. Every week there is an incident. That's why good frameworks like Rails are very important. People who actually care about writing secure, good quality software are on the decline, but thank God rails still exists as an option in 2026 despite the fact.
that's not how it works. and i'm fairly sure most all apps deal with databases, unless they're explicitly static pages.
edit: sql injection is about hacking the parameters used in a query. they almost always in some way come from external sources, user input. so they have to be sanitized. it sounds straightforward but bounties are paid all the time on hackerone with documented cases of injection. people are very clever.
i've had to patch some verified cases where the hacker used the name field to pass code in and alter links in emails to make it look like they came from our (household name) company.
As an example, the "react" is just a view layer is a purest pov, to me (or whatever the given framework in question is). Nextjs, Vercel, supabase, lovable, and so on down the line all empower millions of people to ship full-blown apps. We might get carried away with which specific layer is in question, but it doesn't matter if they're always used together to ship millions of (in)secure apps.
You might sanitize for different reasons like business logic, but if it's your first line of defense against sql injection, you're already on the losing side.
JS solutions are loosely coupled, lots of good reasons to do so, but comes at a major complexity cost.
But you can also pick tight packages that do one thing well. Something like oRPC + Drizzle that lets you pipe data from your database to frontend with full typing and cross-boundary go-to-definition while covering most of what Nest and Adonis do with better focused APIs.
And in terms of security, I'll take Typescript with a strong compiler config anyday. For example, I disable: `any`, non-null asserts (no `!`), floating promises without `void` for explicitness, no unnecessary conditions, and a bunch of other strict rules. I also use Branded Types liberally. All of that makes logical errors that can become app-specific security issues (and are thus less readily detected) much less likely to happen. And as a bonus you get really reliable code too.
That said, absolutely worth a look.
The reason it's lacking features is because it's not very popular and hasn't gotten much outside contribution... I seem to also recall something about the founder being too hostile to outside ideas/suggestions also, but I could be misremembering
I’m usually a Go person and love it, but building simple crud routes is not the fun part of it.
As for Rails, I guess now that Ruby is serious about having a JIT in the box, a few actually, it is kind of atractive.
Due to my experience with Tcl, and continuous rewriting into C modules, if a JTI isn't in the box, I kind of don't bother unless it is due to external factors.
Not until they get their gradual typing story straight.
I have the impression, though, that these days it only appeals to those who picked it up before version 3 or 4, when it was smaller, maybe more understandable, and incredibly better than all the competing frameworks (except Django maybe).
If your first contact with rails is version 7+ and you’re only comfortable with JS/TS, then you’re not going to get it and might actually strongly dislike it
Frameworks and structure will save you from neither stupidity nor ignorance.
This is the primary issue with Rails in my experience. It takes intentional effort to internalize the idioms before it clicks and you unlock the magic that makes it so insanely productive. JS devs will keep trying to force backend business logic into Franken-React Stimulus components and complaining it's not very good.
Partly because the handling of JavaScript is much less bespoke and complex.
[^1]: https://github.com/mame/ai-coding-lang-bench?tab=readme-ov-f...
Have so many good memories working with Ruby.
If anyone has old codebase need to be updated and upgraded, refreshed. I am happy to do that.
ideally a JS frontend app won't show logic not intended for the user type in question.
in practice, really often I see a huge app covering all roles and cases, a trove of info for the red team. and even worse, the reality of software development with LLMs in 2026 is plenty of code is being shipped without security audit.
I know it's not an inherent fault of the JS frameworks. bit I share what I see on the streets, most of custom JS apps I see are way more vulnerable to hacking than a old-style MVC app.
yes it is possible to make mistakes in both styles, but in JS apps I probably see 400% more easily discovered vulnerabilities than in a common MVC (even with stimulus) app
> Accelerate your agents with convention over configuration. Ruby on Rails scales from PROMPT to IPO. Token-efficient code that's easy for agents to write and beautiful for humans to review
And I fucking hate it. If I read this the first time I would think this is some kind of tool to optimize your LLM agents.
I have been using Rails for over a decade now and always liked the focus on writing beautiful and simple code. On making it easy to reason about with colleagues. Now it seems like DHH is throwing all what made Rails special overboard.
If we are all supposed to be talking to agents now, what's the difference if my agent uses fucking Next, Nuxt, Rails or Django?
The claim seems quite clear to me: "convention over configuration allows coding agents to be more effective".
But yes, I do agree that the main line should say what Ruby on Rails actually is, not why it's good for your agent.
However having worked with Typescript for 8 years now... I'm not sure I could go back to Ruby without types. For LLMs thats important as well, the more guard rails you can give them the better. What's the state of type checkers today?
However, the fact its still the js ecosystem with react, thing is even though it's super productive in churning out the code, there's too many possible ways to do something. it's unwieldy.
For example Claude is obsessed with making react context providers. it'll make tons of them to power every feature. and your app will happily hold 20 layers of russian doll'd state in memory with no way to link to anything.
you have to tell it, no don't do that. i need you to power this thing through the router, through the url. and that has to be designed cohesively. and that's very different from the context free-for-all.
I agree. Not only that, I feel like TypeScript is currently the only popular high-level language with a type system capable of communicating all meaningful information. It seems to have hit an LLM sweet spot.
Looking at other candidates:
- Rust is popular and has a powerful type system, but it forces you to program at a level that's lower than necessary for most projects, hindering usability.
- Go is much more usable and very popular, but its type system can't communicate much.
- Haskell has an excellent type system, but it's nowhere near popular enough, and its usability suffers due to esoteric constraints (laziness, purity).
- etc.
I don't know the recent developments in Python's and Ruby's type systems. They may be able to compete these days, but they were nowhere near TS's level in terms of contract a few years ago when I last tried them out.
And I admittedly have no idea what's going on with C# and Java, but I'd love to hear about it.
Very true for me as well. I've never worked with Ruby but feel the same way about Django.
Btw, if you're looking for a "Rails but with TypeScript," my colleagues and I are working on almost just that: https://wasp.sh/.
The main difference, besides the ecosystem, is that we're more in the "configuration over convention" camp. Wasp has a simple DSL for specifying said configuration, but it's about to be replaced with a TypeScript file.
Wasp is still in beta and nowhere near Rails-level polish. But, depending on your early adopter tendencies, you might find it interesting regardless. If you do try it out, please reach out and share your thoughts.
The agents pick up conventions from the extensive code in their corpus and aggressively follow them. I don't think Rails being explicit about it adds a lot unless someone is prone to prompting towards absurdity.
it's a little cringe, but arguably the benefit of having agents use rails would be tht when you review and audit the agent produced code, you review something that is, as you put it: "beautiful and simple code" and "making it easy to reason about..."
I loved rails back in 2017. I may be an outlier but the line tempts me to try it again despite having adopted the who cares attitude to langs. Would be nice to hear from someone first hand if they felt it helped.
This is so painful... I can't help but wonder who they're trying to target with such inane slogans.
Rails is amazing, but "token-efficiency" is not on the list of reasons why.
The people who think that spicy autocomplete actually has an understanding of the slop it's churning out for them.
Typical DHH insanity.
I've only just noticed that on the Rails homepage, and while I acknowledge everyone's chasing that sweet sweet AI hype, I gotta say that's... disappointing[1]. The reason I fell in love with Ruby (and by extension, Rails) is because it enabled me as a human to express myself through code. Not to become a glorified janitor for a LLM.
[1]=Well, I had a stronger response initially but I toned it down a bit for here...
fwiw that headline is cringey for sure. but DHH has proven himself a great marketer. it very likely is riding the wave.
Trying to answer the question of, why is language and framework still relevant in a world where almost everyone uses an agent for coding?
And yeah you're right, like what is the difference at that point? If the pitch is "AI agents write this", then the obvious response is "well why would I not use what has more training data then?".
Because if the domain logic is getting more complex then more types will not catch the bugs unless you are willing for codify business rules within types so then you have to test the types.
rails lost it's convention over configuration ways, the generated app is dozens of files, lack of explanations and guidance on how to setup various things like environments, kamal being the worst offender and the changes between recent major releases aren't making it any easier to read the (often ai slop) articles and docs
It's not just Rails. Ruby is dying. And has been for quite some years now.
The strangest things are people writing blog entries claiming the opposite. Like "ruby ages like fine wine". No, that is incorrect - it is dying. I have been using Ruby since about 2004 or 2005. I still use it just about daily. I started before Rails and couldn't care any less about Rails; sadly the ecosystem is infiltrated by corporations such as shopify and others. You can see how they took over RubyCentral effectively (and if they insinuate otherwise - nope, I am not an idiot. I see the pattern. I notice what is happening. You call a black cat a green frog and I call bullshit. It's a black cat. See RubyCentral running amok already before they mass-purged developers, but that's another story - let's go back to ruby, and rails.)
> And Ruby itself is nowhere near the top 10 languages, sitting just underneath Lua and freaking Assembly language in terms of popularity!
Yup. Ruby is dying. It is following perl.
Now, defining "dying" is hard because you still have an active community, even outside of the train wrek that is rails (anyone still caring what random crap DHH writes on his blog? I've noticed fewer people care about the garbage he publishes, other than making fun when shopify damages the ecosystem - oh wait, he sits on the board of shopify. Did I already point out how much damage shopify causes here?).
> But I’m a stubborn bastard, and if I find a technology I like, I’ll stick with it particularly for projects where I don’t have to care about what anyone else is using or what the latest trend is.
On this part I agree. Ruby as a language is very well designed. It is a great language. I don't think anyone really objects to this, so the criticism has to be split - some criticism is valid, some is not. As a language ruby is well designed.
Nonetheless it is dying too. That is also a factual statement. Anyone claiming the opposite is wrong. At the least this is the case right now, and has been in the last some years, to varying extent.
> realised Ruby was “a better Perl than Perl”.
Also true. Ruby is the better perl. But I actually call Ruby syntactic sugar over C, because this is actually what Ruby is, if you think it through. My use cases are mostly helper-scripts, tons of that, over whatever I do in general. Literally everything computer-related. That includes use cases for the world wide web. All my needs here are covered by Ruby - but not by rails. I don't need rails.
Sadly, ruby also has a second problem: documentation. The documentation is crap in general. Look at rack. Opal. WebAssembly for Ruby. That documentation is a joke. An insult. Even sinatra, though better documented than these, has a bad documentation for the most part. There are some exceptions; for instance, hexapdf is well documented, and Jeremy's projects are also well-documented. So I am not saying everything is poorly documented. But for a language that once claimed it wants to compete against python ... sorry, documentation-wise this is still an epic failure point. In some ways ruby actually deserves to follow the path to extinction like perl did, merely because it failed to adjust, adapt and really improve. Yes, there is some internal improvement, but in many ways ruby failed to solve the problems people critisized it for, for many years. And now catching up is SUPER hard. I don't think it can happen anymore. I thought it was possible 10 years ago, but the last 5 years made it clear that ruby is towards extinction. It still does not change me using it, since ruby covers my use cases, but anyone thinking there will be an influx of new young folk driving ruby forward, is just worshipping an illusion here.
> There’s just this minimal translation required between what I’m thinking and what I type.
That's true. Ruby is kind of transitioning your thoughts into code.
> Sure, I can knock things together in Python, Go, or whatever the flavour of the month is, but I always feel on some level like I’m fighting the language rather than working with it.
Kind of, though python works fairly well too.
> And of course there was the welcoming, quirky “outsider” community feel with characters like Why the Lucky Stiff and their legendary Poignant Guide To Ruby.
Well - _why ragequit when someone doxxed him. But even aside from this, I found the poignant guide super-confusing. It was art, but I prefer less confusion myself. Still, _why is gone from the ruby ecosystem. Supposedly he is still doing computer-related stuff in reallife but he is no longer really affiliated with ruby as such. Did I already point out that ruby is dying?
> it’s just so nice being able to write things like
unless date <= 3.days.from_now
if upload_size > 2.megabytes
And AI is doing the rest. The path to exctinction.
Does Claude make "scripting" languages obsolete? I mean that knowledge becomes less useful if AI autogenerates everything.
> This can be something simple like caching for a specific time period:
<% cache "time_based", expires_in: 5.minutes do %>
<!-- content goes here -->
<% end %>
I abandoned PHP for many reasons but one was the spaghetti problem. Rail has the same spaghetti problem, though ruby is prettier than PHP. Still, that spaghetti design is just awful.
> This is why services like Heroku and Pivotal Cloud Foundry thrived back then
Heroku is also in the process of dying. There were some recent discussions about it on reddit as to why.
> While the Stack Overflow survey isn’t necessarily an accurate barometer of developer opinion, the positions of Ruby and Rails do show it’s fallen from grace in recent times.
It's not just SO though. TIOBE, despite being crap, also shows a similar trend. And if you research things, you notice many people moved on from ruby, for many reasons - often work-related.
The numbers are all there though. Now people either believe the numbers - or they write fake analysis such as this here: https://medium.com/railsfactory/ruby-is-not-dying-its-aging-...
> Anecdotally, I find a lot of documentation or guides that haven’t been updated for several years and the same goes for a lot of gems, plugins and other projects.
Yup. A dying ecosystem. I stopped using rubygems.org myself after Marty pushed the ecosystem into shopify's corporate pet project. 100.000 downloads and then your project is hijacked? Or the new shiny corporate rules? Nah. Go to corporate land and leave us alone, Marty. RubyCentral most definitely does NOT represent "the community". The original guys who wrote rubygems - now these were community folks, not some corporate ponicorns. Sadly when money is tight, bad things happen, and the ruby ecosystem showed this beautifully. Kind of bad too because it means money wins over community; but this is a chicken-egg problem, because how to grow a community if the trend goes downwards, for whatever the reason(s)?
> And I find that most gems follow a similar downward trend of activity.
Yup - but this is also old, even before RubyCentral transitioned into CorporationCentral. Ruby folks left ruby, years ago already. The people I knew from, say, 2005 to 2012 or so, also from IRC - some still use ruby, but most moved on to other things (also for financial reasons usually).
> Rails on the other hand actually seems to be picking up steam and has been remarkably consistent since the big “boom” of Rails 3.0 in 2010
Nope. Rails is also dying. It does not have the same 1:1 problem as ruby has, but the decline is 100% there too.
> Rails is a rare example of an OSS project that’s grown into its release cadence rather than burning out.
Not really. Ignore the promo. Look at the facts. Rails has been hurting too (which makes DHH laughing about when RubyCentral mass-purges developers both evil and silly, because that hurts the whole ruby ecosystem too - what was shopify thinking here?).
> Whether it can still find an audience amongst new developers is an open question
Yeah that is the question. Unfortunately the answer is there: new developers won't use ruby for the most part. AI also competes here now.
2026 is not like 2006, sorry folks.
> I probably could eventually build things almost as fast in another language or framework, but I doubt I’d be smiling as much while I did so.
Well, I used perl, php, python (still use python too). Ruby is more efficient for my brain though. And I disagree that I could be as fast as in another language. I simply have fewer barriers when writing ruby for the most part. Less restrictions. I don't think anyone thinks ruby itself is a bad language at all. We need to keep the discussions separate.
Pretty good comment from Mark Dastmalchi-Round by the way. Well-written, tons of details, opinions - even if I may disagree with some points, the overall quality of his blog entry is very good. We should give him very good marks for the blog - even more so as it is not on medium.com. I hate medium.com (and the link above, is to medium.com ... why did I link it ...)
No other programming language brings developer joy because……. errrr because ……. Well because we are just super certain and confident, that’s why! Oh and DHH said so.
I started my dev career with php and then nodejs, but recently got a job with rails, and honestly, it’s the worst among the 3.
There is no static typing whatsoever, it’s littered with magically generated methods, on a moderate size project the controllers or models directories grow to dozen of files. In general it feels like you need a lot of mental context in order to work with Rails, and I believe this is the reason people who run it for 10+ years in production love it. They simply carry all the magic in their heads, rather than let the framework guide you.
I, however, get much more DX and production stability by building with a boring (router + server side rendering) NodeJS stack with typescript and schema validation. My services are more stable and do not crash on “undefined method foo for nil”.
I guess people will defend whatever they know best, even if it has quirks.
On a positive note, I like ruby as a language. It has cool features like pattern matching, named arguments, or dropping verbose statements like “return” at the end of the function.
It's been 20 years, and Ruby/Rails still can't get their typing working.