The real driver is complexity cost. Every line of client JS brings build tooling, npm audit noise, and another supply chain risk. Cutting that payload often makes performance and security better at the same time. Of course, Figma‑ or Gmail‑class apps still benefit from heavy client logic, so the emerging pattern is “HTML by default, JS only where it buys you something.” Think islands, not full SPAs.
So yes, the pendulum is swinging back toward the server, but it’s not nostalgia for 2004 PHP. It’s about right‑sizing JavaScript and letting HTML do the boring 90 % of the job it was always good at.
You still have to deal with all the tooling you are talking about, right? You’ve just moved the goalpost to the BE.
And just like the specific use cases you mentioned for client routing I can also argue that many sites don’t care about SEO or first paint so those are non features.
So honestly I would argue for SPA over a server framework as it can dramatically reduce complexity. I think this is especially true when you must have an API because of multiple clients.
I think the DX is significantly better as well with fast reload where I don’t have to reload the page to see my changes.
People are jumping into nextjs because react is pushing it hard even tho it’s a worse product and questionable motives.
I think the DX is significantly better as well with fast reload…
Maybe the answer was never in JS eating the entire frontend, and changing the tooling won’t make it better, as it’s always skirting what’s actually good for the web.
If you ever worked seriously on anything non-SPA you would never, ever claim SPAs “dramatically reduce complexity”. The mountain of shit you have pull in to do anything is astronomical even by PHPs standards and I hate PHP. Those days were clean compared to what I have to endure with React and friends.
The API argument never sat well with me either. Having an API is orthogonal: you can have one or do not have one, you can have one and have a SSR app. In the AI age an API is the easy part anyway.
For applications that are not highly interactive, you don't quite need a lot of tooling on the BE, and since need to have a BE anyway, a lot of standard tooling is already in there.
React style SPAs are useful in some cases, but most apps can live with HTMX style "SPA"s
If you are curious, my most recent blog post is all about this concept[0] which I wrote because people seem to be misinformed on what RSCs really are. But that post didn't gain any traction here on HN.
Is it more complex? Sure–but it is also more powerful & flexible. It's just a new paradigm, so people are put off by it.
[0] Server Components Give You Optionality https://saewitz.com/server-components-give-you-optionality
> You still have to deal with all the tooling you are talking about, right? You’ve just moved the goalpost to the BE.
Now you're dealing with 2 sets of tooling instead of 1.
> And just like the specific use cases you mentioned for client routing I can also argue that many sites don’t care about SEO or first paint so those are non features.
There is no app which would not care about first paint. It's literally the first part of any user experience.
> So honestly I would argue for SPA over a server framework as it can dramatically reduce complexity. I think this is especially true when you must have an API because of multiple clients.
So SEO and first paint are not necessary features, but an API for multiple clients is? Most apps I've worked with for over 15 years of web dev never needed to have an API.
> I think the DX is significantly better as well with fast reload where I don’t have to reload the page to see my changes.
With backend apps the reload IS fast. SPA's have to invent tooling like fast reload and optimistic updates to solve problems they created. With server apps, you just don't have these problems in the first place.
This. From a security perspective, server side dependencies are way more dangerous than client side.
Fast forward to what I am doing today in my new job. We have a pretty complex setup using Redwoodjs along with several layers of abstraction with Graphql (which I approve of) and a ton of packages and modules tied together on the front end with react, storybook, etc. and some things I am not even sure why they are there. I see new engineers joining our team and banging their heads to make even the smallest of changes and to implement new features and having to make code changes at multiple different places. I find myself doing similar things as well from time to time - and I always can't help but think about the complexity that I used to deal with when working with these MVC frameworks and how ridiculously easy it was to just throw logic in a controller and a service layer and and the view templates for the UI stuff. It all fit in so easily and shipping features was super simple and quick.
I wouldn't discount react as a framework but I am also starting to some cracks caused by using TypeScript on the backend. This entire Javascript world seems to be a mess you don't want to mess with. This is probably just me with an opinion, but but using Turbo, Stimulus and and sprinkles of LiveView got me really really far very quickly.
The first framework I ever got to use was GTK with Glade and QT with designer shortly there after. These, I think, show the correct way to arrange your applications anywhere, but also it works great on the web.
Use HTML and CSS to create the basis of your page. Use the <template> and <slot> mechanisms to make reusable components or created widgets directly in your HTML. Anything that gets rendered should exist here. There should be very few places where you dynamically create and then add elements to your page.
Use javascript to add event handlers, receive them, and just run native functions on the DOM to manage the page. The dataset on all elements is very powerful and WeakMaps exist for when that's not sufficient. You have everything you need right in the standard environment.
If your application is API driven then you're effectively just doing Model-View-Controller in a modern way. It's exceptionally pleasant when approached like this. I have no idea why people torture themselves with weird opinionated wrappers around this functionality, or in the face of an explosion of choices, decide to regress all the way back to server side rendering.
IME this is backwards. All that stuff is a one-off fixed cost, it's the same whether you have 10 lines of JS or 10,000. And sooner or later you're going to need those 10 lines of JS, and then you'll be better off if you'd written the whole thing in JS to start with rather than whatever other pieces of technology you're using in addition.
Many interactions are simply better delivered from the client. Heck some can only be exclusively delivered from the client (eg: image uploading, drag and drop, etc).
With HTMX, LiveViews, etc there will be challenges integrating server and client code... plus the mess of having multiple strategies handling different parts of the UI.
Was this not the case? And if so, what has fundamentally changed?
Having one API for web and mobile sounds good but in practice often the different apps have different concerns.
And SEO and page speed were always reasons the server never died.
In fact, the trend is the opposite direction - the server sending the mobile apps their UIs. That way you can roll out new updates, features, and experiments without even deploying a new version.
Figma is written in C++ to webasm.
I am starting to think now is a great time to return to some of the Knockout-era ideals of "Progressive Enhancement". Web Components, the template tag, local storage, CSS view transitions, and a few other subtle modern things seem to be getting close to the point where the DX is as good or better than SPAs and the UX feels similar or better, too.
Been a web dev for over a decade, and I still use plain JS. I have somehow managed to avoid learning all the SPAs and hyped JS frameworks. I used HTMX for once project, but I prefer plain JS still.
I was a JQuery fan back in the day, but plain JS is nothing to scoff at these days. You are right though, in my experiences at least, I do not need anything I write to all happen on a single page, and I am typically just updating something a chunk at a time. A couple of event listeners and some async HTTP requests can accomplish more than I think a lot of people realize.
However, if I am being honest, I must admit one downfall. Any moderately complex logic or large project can mud-ball rather quickly -- one must be well organized and diligent.
I've heard people say they just want "Pure JS" with no frameworks at all because frameworks are too complex, for their [currently] small app. So they get an app working, and all is good, right until it hits say 5000 lines of code. Then suddenly you have to re-write it all using a framework and TypeScript to do typing. Better to just start with an approach that scales to infinity, so you never run into the brick wall.
As I’ve become more senior I’ve realized that software devs have a tendency to fall for software “best practices” that sound good on paper but they don’t seem to question their practical validity. Separation of concerns, microservices, and pick the best tool for the job are all things I’ve ended up pushing back against.
In this particular case I’d say “pick the best tool for the job” is particularly relevant. Even though this advice is hard to argue against, I think it has a tendency to take developers down the path of unnecessary complexity. Pragmatically it’s usually best to pick a single tool that works decently well for 95% of your use cases instead of a bunch of different tools.
Figma is a definite yes. But Gmail is something we say from late 00s and somehow continue till now. I thought it has been proven we dont need SPA for Email Client. Hey is perfectly fine other than a little slow, mostly due to server response time and not Turbo / HTML / HTMX itself.
I still believe we have a long way to go and innovate on partial HTML swaps. We could have push this to the limit so that 98% of the web doesn't need SPA at all.
Really hopes Rails has more in store this year.
Everything after ready should have been static content.
And what makes me like Next.js, besides the SaaS SDKs that give me no other framework choice, it is being quite similar to those experiences.
I loved building things that way.
As far as I understand hardcover was really created because goodreads discontinued their api and the team at hardcover saw how many people relied on it for a myriad of different niche projects.
If hardcover was just a replacement for the goodreads platform, then I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's there for the api, with the platform around it intended as a way to ensure free access of the api for everyone. And from that pov choosing GraphQL makes a lot of sense imo. You can't anticipate all the cool and different things people might want to do with it, so they chose the most flexible api spec they could.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if a complete rails rewrite was the right choice. The App was slow and sluggish beforehand, with frequent ui glitches and it still has those same issues. Their dev blog claims significant performance increases, but as a user I haven't noticed a big difference. Sticking with next.js, but moving to a selfhosted instance and then iteratively working on performance improvements would've been (imho) the better way forward. I see no reason why next.js somehow fundamentally couldn't do what they're trying to do, but rails can. Especially with just 30k users (which tbc is a great achievement, just not impressive from a technical standpoint).
Do you need a separate frontend framework? No, probably not, and that's exactly the problem that Next solves - write your backend and frontend in the same place.
Do you need a complicated build process? No. You want your build process to be just "run npm". And that's what something like Next gets you.
"Monolithic RoR app with HTML templates on VPS" would introduce more problems than it solves. If Next-style frameworks had come first, you would be posting about how RoR is a solution in search of a problem that solves nothing and just overcomplicates everything. And you'd be right.
Not remotely true. There are plenty of web apps that work just fine with a standard fixed set of API endpoints with minimal if any customization of responses. Not to mention the web apps that don't have any client-side logic at all...
GraphQL solves a problem that doesn't exist for most people, and creates a ton of new problems in its place.
The value of GraphQL is also its downfall. The flexibility it offers to the client greatly complicates the backend, and makes it next to impossible to protect against DoS attacks effectively, or even to understand app performanmce. Every major implementation of GraphQL I've seen has pretty serious flaws deriving from this complexity, to the point that GraphQL APIs are more buggy than simpler fixed APIs.
With most web apps having their front-end and back-end developed in concert, there's simply no need for this flexibility. Just have the backend provide the APIs that the front-end actually needs. If those needs change, also change the backend. When that kind of change is too hard or expensive to do, it's an organisational failing, not a technical one.
Sure, some use-cases might warrant the flexibility that GraphQL uses. A book tracking app does not.
You throw away all the debuggability and simplicity of rest for close to zero advantages
Everytime I hit the "should we use GraphQL" question in the last decade we balked because we already had fast REST like APIs and couldn't see a how it would get faster.
To your point it was more of a mish-mash than anything with a central library magically dealing with the requests, so there is more cognitive load, but it also meant we had much more control over the behavior and performance profile.
We've been using it in production for 10 years. Would I change a single thing? No. Every day I come to work thankful that this is the tech stack that I get to work on because it _actually works_ and doesn't break down, regardless of size.
But lots of apps can do with a lightweight pull API that can be tailored, fits the applications' access control model (as points of contrast to GraphQL) and it's less work and less risk than finding, integrating and betting on a GraphQL implementation.
* difficult auth story. next-auth is limited in a few ways that drove us to use iron-session, such as not being able to use a dynamic identity provider domain (we have some gov clients who require us to use a special domain). This required us to basically own the whole openid flow, which is possible but definitely time we didn’t expect to have to spend in a supposedly mature framework.
* because the NextJS server wasn’t our primary API gateway we ended up having to proxy all requests through it just to add an access token to avoid exposing it on the client. The docs around this were not very clear, and this adds yet another hop with random gotchas like request timeout/max header size/etc.
* the framework is very aggressive about getting you on their cloud, and they make decisions accordingly. This was at odds with our goals.
* the maintainers aren’t particularly helpful. While on its own this would be easy to look past, there are other tools/frameworks we use in spite of their flaws because the maintainers are so accessible and helpful (shout out to Chillicream/HotChocolate!)
Astro is also really nice and easy to learn and host.
And Kotlin + Ktor feels very good to write in on serverside. Fast, easy and fluent to write in, like Ruby; but with Java's ecosystem, speed and types.
I often see myself going back to Ruby on Rails for my private stuff. It's always a pleasure. On the other side, there are so few rails people available (compared to js) that it's not viable for any professional project. It would be irresponsible to choose that stack over js and often java for the backend.
Anyone have similar feelings?
My take: the JS ecosystem tends to avoid abstraction for whatever reason. Example: they don’t believe that their web framework should transparently validate that the form submission has the correct shape because that’s too magical. Instead the Right Way is to learn a DSL (such as Zod) to describe the shape of the input, then manually write the code to check it. Every single time. Oh and you can’t write a TS type to do that because Reasons. It all comes off as willful ignorance of literally a decade or more of established platforms such as Rails/Spring/ASP.NET. All they had to do was steal the good ideas. But I suspect the cardinal sin of those frameworks was that they were no longer cool.
I have a hard time relaying this without sounding too negative. I tried to get into SSR webdev with TS and kept an open mind about it. But the necessary ingredients for me weren’t there. It’s a shame because Vite is such a pleasure to develop with.
Someone will steal the good ideas eventually. And everyone will act like it’s the first time this idea has ever come up. I’ve seen it happen a few times now, and each time it makes me feel ancient.
I thought Prisma.js was the most popular by far? It's the one I've always seen used in docs and examples.
I'm personally an elixir Phoenix Fanboy now, so I don't choose rails as my first choice for personal projects, but I think it is an excellent choice for a company. In fact, I would probably recommend it the most over any framework if you need to hire for it.
This has been my experience.
It is very easy to write a server with it, hosting and deploying is painless, upgrading it (so far) has been painless, linting and debugging has been a breeze.
If you're coming from Ruby, then learning Elixir requires a small mental adjustment (from Object Oriented to Functional). Once you get over that hump, programming in Elixir is just as much fun as Ruby! :)
I still haven't found an ORM with JS that really speaks to me.
> there are so few rails people available (compared to js) that it's not viable for any professional project
I don't think this is true; Shopify is a Rails shop (but perhaps it's more accurate to say it's a Ruby shop now). It feels easy to make a mess in Rails though, imo that's the part that you could argue is irresponsible
Long story short: I ended up choosing ASP.NET Core with Minimal APIs. The main reason was indeed EF Core as ORM, which I consider as one if not the best ORM. In the Node world there's so much promise (Prisma, Drizzle, ...) but also so much churn.
I don't mean that rewrite hell is a permanent state, but you will always be rewriting parts of your project. I'd rather choose an ecosystem where the friction for rewriting is minimal.
Choose boring tech that doesnt change since its already mature and battle tested and because it is not beholden to the whims of some VC money or whatever.
React itself (not Next.js) doesnt change a lot and will let you run your app for the next decade at least.
Same with any boring PHP, Ruby, Python, Java, dotnet framework out there.
You might need to upgrade versions, but there will very seldom be breaking changes whete you have yo rewrite a lot.
Just use Gel [1] and you won't have to deal with ORMs (plus you get other great features).
As a historically backend-developer, I've tended to dislike Html/JS/CSS. It's a meaningfully different paradigm from the Swing/Awt, WinForms, Android UX, etc. That alone was enough to frustrate me and keep me on the backend. To learn how to make frontend, I've had to since learn those 3. They're finally becoming familiar.
BUT, for front-end developers, they needed to learn "yet another language"; and a lot of these languages have different / obnoxious build systems compared to nvm and friends. And then, like anyone who's ever changed languages knows, they had to learn a whole bunch of new frameworks, paradigms, etc.
Well, they would have, but instead, some of them realized they could push Javascript to the backend. Yes, it's come with *a lot* of downsides; but, for the "Get Shit Done" crowd - and especially in the world of "just throw more servers at it" and "VC money is free! Burn it on infra!" these downsides weren't anything worth worry about.
But the front-end devs - now "full stack devs" but really "javascript all the things" devs -, continued to create in a visible way. This is reflective of all the friggin' LinkedIn Job Postings right now that require Next.JS / Node.JS / whatever roles for their "full stack" positions. One language to rule them all, and all that.
Just some ramblings, but I think it's strongly related to why people would choose Next.JS __ever__, given all its downsides.
When your business goal is put text on screen the next logical step is to ask how much time and money does the tech stack really save? I have never found a developer that answer that question with a number. That’s a really big problem.
I get where you're coming from but that's actually quite a bit of an oversimplification even for many web apps outside of the 1% for which a lot of modern web development solutions and frameworks seem to have been created.
For one thing it doesn't take any account of input. When someone draws something with Figma or writes something in Google Docs or buys something from Amazon - or indeed any online shop at whatever scale - or gets a set of insurance quotes from a comparison site or amends something in an employee's HR record or whatever it may be the user's input is a crucial part of the system and its behaviour.
For another, we're not just putting text on the screen: we're putting data on the screen. And whilst data can always be rendered as text (even if not very readably or comprehensibly), depending on what it represents, it can often be more meaningfully rendered graphically.
And then there are integrations that trigger behaviour in other systems and services: GitHub, Slack, eBay, Teams, Flows, Workato, Salesforce, etc. Depending on what these integrations do, they can behave as inputs, outputs, or both.
And all of the above can result in real world activity: money is moved, orders are shipped from warehouses, flow rates are changed in pipelines, generators spool up or down, students are offered (or not offered) places at universities, etc.
That's about as absurd a statement as saying all of Backend is just "returning names matching a certain ID" for how out of date and out of touch it is.
The reasons I prefer client-side rendering: (1) separation of concerns UX in the front, data/business in the back (2) Even as a back-end dev, prefer Vue to do front-end work rather than rendering text + scripts in the backend that run in the browser, (3) at scale it's better to use the client hardware for performance (other than initial latency).
I wonder how you'll handle image uploading, drag and drop, media players, etc with simple static content rendering.
It's like saying that the entire job of a politician is to speak words out loud. You're reducing a complex problem to the point that meaningful discussion is lost.
You cannot just blindly trust the page speed metric but it should be impossible to miss things like this when you are actually using the site. Compare the experience to something like GoodReads that's using plain old SSR and you'll immediately notice the difference.
I've been saying this forever and this is a great reminder for those React-hating folks here on HN: usually it's the developer's fault his web is slow, not the framework's.
Having just hit severe scaling issues with a python service I’m inclined to only write my servers in Go or Rust anymore. It’s only a bit harder and you get something that can grow with you
Convention over configuration and less code is fine, but unfortunately Rails is not a great example of it IMO. The "rails" are not strong enough; it's just too loosey goosey and it doesn't give you much confidence that you're doing it "the right way". The docs don't help much either, partly because of the history of breaking changes over releases. And the Ruby language also doesn't help because of the prolific globals/overrides and implicitness which makes for "magic".
So you're encouraged/forced to write exhausting tests for the same (normally dumb CRUD) code patterns over and over and over again. Effectively testing the framework moreso than your own "business logic", because most of the time there barely is any extra logic to test.
So I'm also surprised it gained the reputation is has.
Since most websites will never scale past the limitations of these frameworks, the productivity gains usually make this the right bet to make.
Ruby/Rails was a breath of fresh air. Translate: Not a PITA.
Like yeah, I know you can do it. But it was much more effort to do things like writing robust migrations or frontend templates. I’d love to find something in Go or Typescript that made me feel quite as productive as Rails did.
Why do you need GraphQL here?
If your developer workstation can't send a few KB of data over a TCP socket in a reasonable amount of time due to the colossal amount of Zoomer JavaScript abstraction nonsense going on, something has gone terribly wrong.
The whole idea of needing "islands" and aggressive caching and all these other solutions to problems you created -- that you have somehow managed to make retrieving a trivial amount of data off a flash storage device or an in-memory storage system of some kind slow -- is ludicrous.
What's funny is that people struggling after deploying it now think that they have invented the N+1 problem.
The app was initially client-side only. I choose GraphQL over REST because Hasura created a super quick API for the database.
Also, our API is public! We started as an alternative to Goodreads when they closed their API.
I've built a few apps in it now, and to me, it starts to feel a bit like server-side React (in a way). All your HTML/components stream across to the user in reaction to their actions, so the pages are often very light.
Another really big bonus is that a substantial portion of the extras you'd typically run (Sidekiq, etc) can basically just be baked into the same app. It also makes it dead simple to write resilient async code.
It's not perfect, but I think it's better than RoR
TLDR; Are most Phoenix deployments focused on a local market or deployed 'at the edge' or are people ignoring the potentially janky experience for far-flung users?
I haven't done a lot of optimistic updates with LiveView yet. I'm not sure how sanely you could really achieve it (because it seems you'd lose the primary benefit: server-side rendering / source of truth).
However, there are a few mechanisms you can use to note that the page is loading / processing a LV event that can assist the user in understanding the latency. e.g., at the very least, make a button spindicate. I've experienced (in my own apps) the "huh is the app dead?" factor with latency, which suggests I need to simulate latency more. If the socket is unstable or cannot connect, the app is just entirely dead, though the fallback to longpolling is satisfactory.
I think it would really shine for internal apps due to the sheer velocity and simplicity of developing and deploying it.
In the worst case, you could fall back to using regular controllers or APIs controllers, so I still see it being a "better version of Ruby" overall. However, if we're going back to this, I would rather use SolidStart and do it all in TypeScript anyway.
At the end of the day, I'm very torn between the resilience/ease/speed of Elixir and the much better type system in TS. The ability to just async something and know it will work is kind of crazy for improving performance of apps (check out assign_async)
> the majority of results are 300ms+
Another thing to consider is that a lot of apps (SPA powered by API) take 300~1000ms to even give you a JSON response these days. So if you can get by with making a button spin while you await the liveview response (or are content with topbar.js) I think you can get roughly close to the same experience.
> deployed 'at the edge'
The nice part of Elixir is you could probably make a global cluster quite easily. I've never done it though. You could have app nodes close to users. I think you'd have to think of a way to accelerate your DB connection however (which probably lives in 1 zone).
However, Elixir and Phoenix is more than just LiveView! There’s also an Inertia plugin for Phoenix, and Ecto as an “ORM” is fantastic.
Many teams use this with React.
Hotwire is the default and they develop it because DHH wants to, but they're not putting up any barriers to you using whatever you want.
Also, DHH doesn't seem to care about how big it is. His stated goal is for it to forever be a framework that's usable by a single dev.
Dunno I loved rails, built monoliths, built api only, but when I tried sprinkling a bit of react in my views (say you only need a little bit of interaction, or want to use a react date picker) then theres all these sharp edges.
The reason I want it to be bigger is that user base helps the single dev, with help resources, up to date gems, and jobs.
without ANY irony or sarcasm, i just want appreciate that its funny how that happens completely without explicit desire or intention to have this effect from the developers of Next (i'm serious, don't hate me guys, we are friends, i do believe that this ofc is not intended)
i'm sure there's a good and meaningful explanation (that I'm interested in reading) but lots of little microdecisions compound when the developer of the framework does not also experience it as a paying customer (or, more subtly, the developer of the framework wants to serve the 10000x larger enterprise customer and needs to make choices to balance that vs the needs of the small)
I think what confuses people is Ruby’s meta programming. The ability to dynamically define named methods makes rails seem far more magical than it actually is. You also can’t tell the difference between method calls and local variables.
I wish I got along better with Rails, honestly.
I love Next.js. I have used other frameworks including RoR and there is nothing like it (except Svelte or Nuxt but I view them as different flavors of the same core idea). But I only use it to make monoliths. I can see getting frustrated with it if I was using it alongside a different back end.
I would really be interested in real world performance metrics comparing load times etc. on a stock nextjs app using defaults vs. rails and co.
- Cost
- Complexity
- Learning curve
- Scalability
- Frequent changes
- And surprisingly bad performance compared with the direct competitors
Nowadays, NextJS is rarely the best tool for the job. Next and React are sitting in the "never got fired for buying IBM" spot. It is a well earned position, as both had a huge innovational impact.
Do you need best in class loading and SEO with some interactivity later on? Astro with islands. Vitepress does something similar.
Do you need a scalable, cost efficient and robust stack and have moderate interactivity? Traditional SSR (RoR, Django, .NET MVC, whatever) with maybe some HTMX.
Do you have a highly interactive app? Fast SPA like Svelte, Solid or Vue.
NextJS generates by default all assets and js-chunks with a sha256 hash in the filename - essentially making them immutable. As outlined in the NextJS, I serve my assets folder with `Cache-Control: public, max-age=604800, immutable`. In a webapp where your users use your app on a semi-daily basis that means all assets and resources will be cache forever, or until you re-deploy a new version of the app. The data comes via REST (in whatever backend-language you want to use) so I don't see how any SSR can outperform nextjs here.
For people who commonly use these frameworks -- is it common to have issues where data or code intended only for server execution makes its way onto the client? Or are there good safeguards for this?
But for sure the lack of clear lines for where the server ends and the client begins has always been a pain of these kinds of framework offerings.
You must imagine my chagrin when React started moving towards rendering on the server(SSR, Server Components, etc). I was happy to move to a full client implementation. Sadly, SEO cannot be ignored.
I recently initiated the backmigration and my approach thus far however has been to take out the "administrative" part out into Rails to benefit from all the useful conventions there, but keep the "business services" in JS or Python and have the two communicate. Best of both worlds, and the potential of all of rubygems, npm and pypi combined.
BTW, I’m also on a similar trajectory using a mix of Java, Python and Node.js to solve different problems. It has been very pleasant experience compared to if I had been bullish on just one of these languages and platforms.
I looked at InertiaJS and it feels like too much "magic" for me personally. I've never used it so I could be wrong but it feels like too many things you have to get working perfectly and the instability in the JS ecosystem makes me worry about adding too many layers.
Pre-rendering (as popularized by static site generators) is the additional step that increases complexity significantly, sometimes security issues too when session-protected cached pages are mistakenly served to the wrong users.
“use client”, server actions that aren’t scrutable in a network tab, laggy page transitions, and, until recently, inscrutable hydration errors: these are some of the recent paper cuts I experienced with Next.
I’d still use it for new projects, but I am keen to use TanStack Start when it’s ready
i’m personally really interested in the next wave of frameworks that make local first development intuitive, like One or something that bakes in Zero
It’s honestly a really underrated framework, smartly designed, with probably the best ORM that exists and a great ecosystem.
Unfortunately, the documentation is painfully bad and the Getting Started guides are really boring compared to Rails or Django.
There may also be Laravel but I can’t say anything about it since I never tried it.
I have complaints about Laravel, but I think it's a lot easier to find examples, and modern PHP has static typing improvements. But I would much rather use C#
Exposed is a solid-enough ORM for my tastes, Ktor is easy-to-use and clean; and Kotlin gives me a type system and fluent / Ruby-style method chaining.
I remember many years ago an akin experience, talking to John Brant and Don Roberts who had done the original refactoring browser in Smalltalk. Java was on its meteoric rise with tons of effort being dumped into Eclipse. They, and others with them, were eager to port these techniques to eclipse, and the theory was they’d be able to do even more because of they typing. But Brant/Roberts that surprisingly it has been more difficult. Part of the problem was the AST. Java, while typed, had a complex AST (many node types), compared to that of Smalltalk (late/runtime typed) which had a very simple/minimal AST. It was in interesting insight.
“Deployment economy” is also new.
Rails has a very strong track record of matching internet scale.
Cloud is highly optimized for traditional server applications. From my experience with Next.js - this is the opposite. A lot of deployment components that don’t naturally fit in, and engineering required to optimize costs.
Not sure about Rails, haven't used it in more than a decade, but NextJS was a major contributor to massive burnout. Of one thing I'm certain: Phoenix is my last web framework. I love it to bits, and I hope to retire before it stops being cool.
> loading the entire homepage only takes one query [if you're logged out]
You can do this with Next.js SSR - there's nothing stopping you from reading from a cache in a server action?
They also talk about Vercel hosting costs, but then self host Rails? Couldn't they have self hosted Next.js as well? Rails notoriously takes 3-4x the resources of other web frameworks because of speed and resources.
Yep! It'd be possible with Next.js. The difference is how it's organized. In Next.js with RSCs, we were fetching data for each part of the page where it's used (trending books, Live events, blog posts, favorite books). Each of those could be their own cache hit to Redis.
One advantage of Rails is the controller. We can fetch all data in s single cache lookup. Of course it'd be possible to put everything needed in a single lookup in Next.js too, but then we wouldn't be leveraging RSCs.
I tried self-hosting Next.js on Digital ocean, but it crashed due to memory leaks without a clear way to understand where the leak was. Google Cloud Run and Vercel worked because it would restart each endpoint. We have more (and cheaper) hosting options with Rails.
All that being said I still use (and like) Rails, currently comparing Phoenix/Elixir to Rails 8 in a side project. But I use typescript w/ Node and Bun in my day job.
Rails is a sharp knife. There is Rails way to do things. You may of course choose to do them differently (this is a contrast with other toolkits that fight this hard), but you are going to have to understand the system well to make that anything but a giant hassle.
With rails, the way it scales is statelessness. You have to map the front end actions to individual endpoints on the server. This works seamlessly for crud stuff (create a thing; edit a thing; delete a thing; list those things). For other use cases it works less seamlessly. NB: it works seamlessly for nested "things" too.
Complex multi-step flows are a pain point. eg you want to build data structures over time where between actions on the server (and remember, you must serialize everything you wish to save between each action), you have incomplete state. Concretely: an onboarding flow which sets up 3 different things in sequence with a decision tree is going to be somewhat unpleasant.
You must keep most state on the server and limit FE state. Hotwire works extremely well but the FE must be structured to make hotwire work well.
I've actually found it to work pretty well with individual pages build in react. My default is to build everything with hotwire and, when the FE gets too complex, to fall back to react.
Rails is nobody's idea of a fast system. You can make it perform more than well enough, but fast it is not.
Upsides, my take: it is the best tool to build websites. The whole thing is built by developers for developers. DX and niceness of tools are valued by the community. Contrast with eg the terrible standard lib that other languages (hi, js) have. Testing is by far the most pleasant I've used, with liberal support for mocking rather than having to do DI. For eg things like [logic, api calls, logic, api calls, logic, db calls] it works incredibly well. It is not the most popular toolkit and it's not react, so that can count against you in hiring.
You can prototype stuff very fast with rails and its a mighty tool in the right hands.
- The Global interpreter lock (GIL) in Ruby is less performant than async thread programming in JS (and some other languages)
- Rails creates a monolith rather than a bunch of independent endpoints. If you have a large team, this can be tricky (but is great for smaller teams who want to move fast)
- How Rails integrates with JS/CSS is always changing. I recommend using Vite instead of the asset pipeline, unless you're going with the stand Rails stimulus js setup.
- Deploying Rails in a way that auto-scales the way serverless functions can is tricky. Their favored deployment is to server of set size using Kamal.
The upsides is that by not trying to hide the database and pretend it doesn't exist you can avoid a whole class of work (and the safety abstractions provided) and be incredibly productive if the requirements align.
Rails also uses way too much magic to dynamically construct identifiers and do control flow.
The over-use of magic and the under-use of static types makes it extraordinarily difficult to navigate Rails codebases. It's one of those things where you have to understand the entire codebase to be able to find anything. Tractable for tiny projects. For large projects it's a disaster.
Rails is a bad choice (as is Ruby).
My favourite web framework at the moment is Deno's Fresh. You get the pleasure of TSX but it's based around easy SSR rather than complex state management and hooks. Plus because it's Deno it's trivial to set up.
"Simplicity is achieved when there's nothing left to remove".
Can anyone come up with the ideal use case where SSR shines? I'm willing to buy it if I see it.
Most websites are significantly simpler to build and maintain with SSR and traditional tools. An entire generation has forgotten this it seems and still thinks in terms of JS frameworks even when trying SSR.
As one example take this website, which serves the page your wrote your comment on using an obscure lisp dialect and SSR.
I run skatevideosite.com and accidentally did the first rewrite when I took it over in react because that’s all I knew. I absolutely tanked the seo.
Rewrote it in rails and got everything back in shape and it’s been a fun experience!
You mentioned giving up on Remix after poking at it for a day. IMHO that was a mistake.
I was the same expert level with Python, now I'm using trpc, nextjs, drizzle, wakaq-ts, hosted on DO App Platform and you couldn't pay me enough to go back to Python, let alone the shitstorm mess that's every Rails app I've ever worked on.
I've also not seen the 1s Next.js pageloads you had, but I'm confident of figuring a fix if that becomes a problem.