• (nodebb)

    These rubies were somehow mined by child slave labor, and turned out to be fake, all at once.

  • Sauron (unregistered)

    so they hired an offshore team to promote international business and add to their staffing.

    "Promoting international business" sounds like a pretext of manglement to get code done by people they could maybe pay less and very probably get rid of easily.

  • (nodebb)

    That was one of the biggest issues with Rails; all its BS hype made it out like any rando could pick it up and be a pro. I remember really liking it UNTIL I used it on a real-world project; the moment that project deviated from forms-over-data CRUD, the whole thing broke down and it became a huge pain in the ass to do anything because I was fighting Rails constantly; in retrospect I should have used ASP.NET MVC at the time as A) I was much more familiar with C# than Ruby, B) It didn't do all this "magic" behind the scenes, and C) It would have been much easier to code my own stuff for the parts that weren't basic forms.

  • (nodebb)

    I've been using Rails for about 13 years now and a few notes:

    1. There seems to be some issue with copy/paste: there are some semicolons inserted in the code that would actually break it.
    2. I have literally never seen a for...in loop in Ruby. It's way more idiomatic to use token_requests.each do |token_request|

    Rails has a learning curve, but once it clicks, I've found it a fast and enjoyable way of coding. You have to be careful to avoid the footguns, natch - having someone who has a lot of experience with Rails guiding you as to what you should and shouldn't do is a huge help. If you don't have that, it's really easy to write really awful applications.

  • (nodebb)

    Ruby is awesome. Everything awful here must be blamed on the outsourced devs.

  • Faroguy (unregistered)

    Since the idea of a block clicked, I really enjoy writing code in Ruby. I do not enjoy this.

  • (nodebb) in reply to DocMonster

    To be fair to Ruby on Rails, it is right in the name. If you stay on the rails, it works great. If you go off the rails, you end up going off the rails.

  • (nodebb)

    Oddly, Ruby is the one language I really was hoping to learn and master, as it seemed to be the hybrid of two of my favorite languages, Smalltalk and Perl. However, just like the proverbial flying car... it was neither good at flying, nor good at being a car.

  • Officer Johnny Holzkopf (unregistered)

    In the line "if token_requests &;&; token_requests.length > 0", is the part "&;&;" some "code to HTML defect" of "and amp semicolon"?

  • SG (unregistered) in reply to DocMonster

    You hit that with almost any strongly-opinionated framework like that. They're great for the simple everyday cases — but as soon as you try to do something more complex, the idea of "magic happens, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" breaks down hard, and you need to learn how to do magic yourself. And there are very few frameworks which make that easy, because it's something they've gone to a lot of effort to hide from the developer...

  • (nodebb)

    Back when Ruby on Rails was all the hype, I remember using it to write a small CRUD prototype at work. I demoed it and everyone liked it.

    Then... I rewrote the whole thing in Django. It turns out that nobody in the team knew nor wanted to do code reviews in Ruby.

    One problem with Ruby is that it becomes quickly write-only. It's too smart and crafty. 6 months later I couldn't remember why I had written the code in that "weird way" -- exactly like that comment above about one wouldn't typically use a for loop because it's not idiomatic. Similarly Rails is full of opinionated and very specific syntaxes and shortcuts. I quickly found that as soon as I stepped out of the prototype, I quickly forgot all these tiny details.

  • (nodebb)

    they all came from a Java background Judging by their Ruby code, I doubt this. They may have written (bad) Java code before, but I would not call that a Java background.

    Addendum 2025-02-07 04:48: Dumb tdwtf layout strikes again.

  • explorer14 (unregistered)

    (which most applications are just basic CRUD!)

    Yes but no, not really! At a lower level of technical details there is information being saved into and retrieved from some form of repository but its the reason why the applications exist in the first place is what's most important. Let's not be reductive at the cost of accidental complexity, design and domain clarity.

Leave a comment on “Not Exactly Gems”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article