Ruby on Rails

Why is it the only non-cancer backend framework?

I like both Python and C# more than Ruby and use C# with ASP.NET on my job but nothing beats the elegance of Rails' Controllers and ActiveRecord.

Attached: Ruby_On_Rails_Logo.svg.png (1200x453, 24K)

>RoR
>not cancer
wat

OP is either retarded or a time traveller from 2007

> elegance
> ActiveRecord
wat

Not OP, but what should I be using today to make websites then?

Phalcon, Postgres, Redis and node.js if you have to.

because 9 times out of 10, it gets the job done, period. there's tons of gems; if you have a business problem to solve, chances are someone's written a gem for it. there's years of best practices built up. documentation is top-notch.

fastest way to appreciate rails is to go to something like python, start using flask, and realize how anemic and ill-equipped it is, and how much you took rails for granted.

not saying rails doesn't have its problems, but that's not what we're discussing.

Attached: Karnatakadishes.jpg (2912x2994, 1.67M)

If it's your personal homepage, make a static website.

Ruby on Roads is fine.
You won't find any back-end language/framework/environment that Jow Forums doesn't hate, if you give up because someone said it's shit, you won't ever get anything done.
Also fine: PHP, Node, Django.
Maybe Go, I still have to try it.

Ruby on Rails*
What the hell.

What the..?
No, Ruby is great an Rails is bad.


Especialy ActiveRecord is terrible if you do anything complex. If you don't use SQL statements it's way too easy to mess things up (ie. "N+1 queries").

OOP and databases are a bad combination.

What are you on about, OP. ASP.NET is at least robust.
Rails on the other hand is what killed Ruby hands down.

Ruby in Ropes

> it's way too easy to mess things up (ie. "N+1 queries").
.includes(:whatever_fucking_relationship_you_need)

wow real fucking hard. it's almost like if you dont know how to use a tool, you may get fucking hurt?

Rails made Ruby great in the first place.
But on the other hand it's cancer.

People should use Sinatra or Hanami instead of Rails, but they don't..
:(

>Rails made Ruby great in the first place.
Nah, it's the reason Ruby is associated with being web-only.

Attached: Karwin_SQL-Antipatterns.png (709x864, 123K)

>RoR
>elegant
Wtf

Yes, but maybe no one would have known Ruby if it wasn't for Rails..
We will never know.

But it is..?
Railsis not the best web framework for me, but it's very elegant.

>don't know how to use a tool
>uses scripting language to build queries
Learn how to use your fucking database.

This is not only a problem of Rails, but also in Java.
The problem is not that it's a scripting langauge, but that you mix relational data with OOP.

For small static stuff, like your portfolio site, or your blog, make a static site.

For small web servers, Node or Python.

For mid web stuff or 0-error-tolerance systems, or "enterprise software", Play.

For real time stuff like a chat app, Go or Node.

It is, and because of that it was copied and similar frameworks made for python (Django), php (Symphony, cake, laryl, etc), Java (spring), and javascript (node). The only reason RoR usage potatoed is because people could move back to their old languages or avoid learning ruby and sticking with js.

>Why is it the only non-cancer backend framework?
You've posted the wrong pic user. Fixed for you ;)

Attached: Screenshot_20180622-201600.png (1080x1920, 243K)

Laravel. Sailsjs. Grails

>robust, scalable and easy to use
Fucking every goddamn framework claims this, and they're all liars.