The creator of Rails on JavaScript FE vs. Classic Server-side Rendering 

Yeah there should be one from around 2007 I think.

Ruby is so good!

😏

@@Honeypotio due to public demand 😀

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NaEG5Dz7xzM.htmlsi=9lJx12kFe8zsV7Lx

jQuery old or Web1 old?

if your iq is under 90 and not able to grasp React.js yes.

@@ivan.jeremic Most apps don't need react, its just added complexity. And React doesn't solve anything, because your business logic WILL be on the backend, no matter what. React is just a way to structure state in the front end. But you're duplicating state, because the one true state will always be on the backend. In 99% of apps, you're wasting your time and introducing added complexity, cost, and defects.

Stay tuned🤭

@@Honeypotio of course!!!! haahahhahahahahah

Thank you from bottom of my heart.

The way you would it until recently in next was that you made your backend logic in whatever language and exposed as json api endpoints and then use next for fetching initial data from those apis and render the initial html server side, but basically just writing front end code in next that happen to also run on the server (for the initial fetch and render)

As for the "why", you might have alot of backend logic and alot of frontend logic which are different ways of thinking about an application and you might want experts in each field only focusing on their area without to much need for syncing development other that planning the json interface between the two

@@emilz0r ah yeah, that’s another great point! Many apps are written that way. But API driven sites have the same issues as what I’m talking about. I guess there are three scenarios here: 1) the API and UI are owned by the same team. 2) The API is owned by a different team in the same company. 3) the API is owned by a team in a different company. For 1, it would be super slow to make changes with separate frontend and backend development. For 2 and 3, the UI would never talk directly to those APIs, there would be a backend that consumes the other teams APIs first, which manipulates and/or combines with additional data before presenting in the UI layer. Because the data driving the site and the UI to present that data are fundamentally tied together, development will always be quicker if the backend driving the UI and the UI are developed in unison. So it should be done by the same developer and not different developers with different skill sets. I don’t see how it can be effective to only have front end devs and only have backend devs. Especially when in the same organisation. It would be super slow to make changes for a team that separates backend development from frontend development. It’s always better to have have devs working on both. If you want to talk about division of focus due to complexity in the code, different teams of devs could focus on certain parts on the app. Eg one team focuses on a particular tool or module of a site, while another team focuses on the platform aspect of a site, like authentication and authorisation and how each feature and new features can hook into that platform seamlessly. Also, yeah you may have a very complex function in the backend, but that functionality would be handled by an expert team, the Integration of that into the app would be done by devs of the site, they would develop the connections to the complex functionality within the backend, and also build the front end. Effectively, the complex app would have an API of some sorts, but it’s the backend code that wraps that API, but the UI should be built by the same people that manage the backend wrapper around the API to the complex functionality.

@@br3nto is the efficiency argument based on data? It seems to make sense but have you experienced both paradigms in a working environment?

@@sleekism no data. I’ve only been on the end of full stack… so I honestly don’t know how front end and back end development can be separated how communication and coordination of work can be done efficiently and effectively in a way that doesn’t just add time in comparison. When you develop the backend and front end together, nothing needs to be coordinated because you just do it together. Happy to hear others insights into how it works.

I enjoy more filtering a list by refreshing the entire page for each click and send the user to the top of the page and make them find the list filtered further down themselves

@@emilz0r This is a bit tong-in-cheek as we know that for local interactions SSR folk still use JavaScript. David is just making making a line on the sand to stand on one side.

@@rickdg oh, I see now. You were promoting not doing everything on the server because you don't need to involve the server in everything, while I though you were doing the opposite because using js (for sending Ajax requests) are bad and you just wanted to drop js altogether

You have to do that anyway, just with JSON. It's the same thing. Unless you plan to dump your entire db table into the frontend. Which, by the way, you can absolutely do without something like React. It just breaks down when you're making something past a toy app. Whether you're using React or not, your data retrieval patterns WILL live in the backend, no matter what. So you don't gain anything from extra client side code, besides complexity.

I agree for applications, but most web pages are just pretty content with little user interaction other than links, so for those solutions it would make sense to make everything backend

@@emilz0r yes that's true as well. If it's a website I pre render statically. Done. I usually differ between apps and websites

He's a mermaid?

@@gradientO mermaid on toast

Nobody? Not me included.

I love Rails

I love Rails

What don't you like about the syntax?

@@doubleandy what do you hate about Ruby? It pays my bills, that is why I love it

Why?

@@nafcho1​​⁠because he doesn’t allow political debates to take place at his company. This is apparently “evil” in the eyes of politically deranged Americans, even though it’s literally considered polite in every other part of the world.

@@consumedata4544yeah, imagine wanting the people who you pay to work actually produce something, rather than engaging in endless political debates that never change anyone’s minds! 🤯

​@@consumedata4544 who wants to debate politcs haha. I wouldn't want to do that in or out of the workplace, but especially not in the workplace