Hacker News Reader

Comment by misiek08 | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for such public confirming there is a lot of more us. I’m just tired hearing how great ideas will save our overblown pseudo-microservice architecture and I’m also running into some projects during evening that just solve problems without use STOA, unnecessary solutions and architectures.

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.

View on HN

I've just started using RoR for a live greenfield project since New Year.

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.

TS doesn't "bin off" duck typing, it's a fundamentally structural type system. It's statically analyzed ducks, all the way down - when nominal behavior is preferred, people have to bend over backwards. Either you are using the wrong vocabulary or I don't think you've bothered to actually learn Typescript. In any case, it's the programming language that successfully brought high-level type system concepts like type algebra, conditional types, etc. to their widest audiences, and it deserves a ton of credit for that. The idea that JS and Ruby and Python and PHP developers would be having fairly deep conversations about how best to model data in a type system was laughable not that long ago.

But we need contracts that go way further what static typing provides. If they add dependant types + ability to enforce the types at runtime so that you can use it on various inputs, then maybe it will be truly useful.

> Either you are using the wrong vocabulary or I don't think you've bothered to actually learn Typescript.

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.

I found it not just to lead to embellishment, but (1) the problems it did flag mostly would be caught by minimal testing; whereas (2) it regularly missed deeper problems. For an example of the latter: using TanStack (React Query) api caching, you have different data shapes for infinite scroll vs non infinite scroll. There were circumstances were an app confused them. Typescript had nothing to say. Nominal typing easily handles these cases and, ime, caught more actual problems.

> the problems it did flag mostly would be caught by minimal testing

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.

> here are a lot of unsafe edges to TS

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.

> the problems it did flag mostly would be caught by minimal testing

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.

I have my complaints about the JS/TS ecosystem, but I'm surprised to see a comment that it's verbose and "boilerplatey."

Could you elaborate on that?

If you're solving problems rails is best at, it's borderline magical.

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.

You are absolutely not alone, brother (or sister). In the past few years when a lot of the millennial generation started getting their first jobs, the shiny object syndrome took over and most everything being made now is a distributed monolith pile of spaghetti code trash.

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.

What is STOA standing for here, please?

Likely a typo of State Of The Art.

FTA:

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com