undefined | Better HN

0 pointswheels2y ago0 comments

It's a false dichotomy in theory. It's mostly not in practice. And that was far truer in 2006 when Shopify got started. Then there really weren't any modern web frameworks in performant languages.

Primarily it's not the language that makes people more or less productive, though it does have some influence. It's mostly the frameworks in those languages. And traditionally the most modern / full-featured web frameworks haven't been in systems languages. The major counterexample at the moment (while still obviously not a systems language) is that modern JS VMs are actually really fast, so while I don't love JS, it does hit that sweet spot at the moment of performance and mature frameworks.

Also, I've never worked in Rust, but am mostly a systems programmer, and while I understand that Rust is supposed to be easier than C or C++, I'm skeptical that it's as easy to work with as higher level languages, or that you could throw most web developers into Rust without some serious additional learning.

0 comments

berkes2y ago

> serious learning.

That's another problem I have in this narrative. Productivity isn't measured by throwing an inexperienced developer at something and then looking how fast they get stuff done. That's learnability.

I'm an experienced Rails developer (some 15 years in) and my productivity has plataued for years now. I've been doing Java and Rust work for years too now. Web and application dev. It took years, but my productivity in both Java and Rust, on anything that lives longer than 6months, has vastly surpassed that of my Rails.

Productivity of a senior, or experienced dev, of a (large) team, of a team with high turnover, of a project over decades, all that is productivity too. And in all those categories, Rails isn't great.

wheelsOP2y ago

We're talking past each other because we're arguing different things. If I understand you, you're saying that you can avoid technical debt by using tools that are intrinsically more performant, and that skilled developers are more productive with more advanced tooling.

That's all correct.

But the point I'm making is that if an MVP isn't accruing technical debt, it's over-engineered. Most of them will be thrown away, or rescoped, and so taking on technical debt is an advantageous strategy: you only have to pay the technical debt on the few survivors.

Shopify at its offset was a CRUD app (fun fact: it started as a snowboarding shop), and in 2006, Rails was a great choice for that.

Your notions are fine for an established company building a piece of infrastructure they're certain they'll need. But that's not what Shopify was, and it's not the spot most startups picking a framework are at.

Your thing about developer quality is kind of meh. Building the first versions of a shopping platform isn't rocket surgery. You don't need Anthony Bourdain to make a sandwich. Particularly if you're not sure anybody wants a sandwich.

berkes2y ago

I agree entirely about that tech debt. I've built, sold, grew and failed several startups myself. Many with Rails at the center. I've been building with Rails for way over a decade, so I'm well aware of the "options" back in the day.

What I'm arguing, however, isn't to take on debt¹, I'm saying that productivity and performance aren't always opposites.

Sure, Rails trades in performance for productivity. But, I've learned, this is mostly just Rails. There are many languages and frameworks that are just as productive (for a certain definition, see previous comment) as Rails, but also performant. And I'm arguing that performance affects productivity: a performant, scalable software is easier to work on, because it gives faster feedback (tests, ci, manual testing), wastes less time waiting for stuff (hundreds of single seconds add up over days and weeks weeks), and decreases friction (I'll postpone running the full test suite if I know it'll hog my machine for the next half hour. I'll gladly run it, if it takes a few minutes or less).

Edit: and, if what you say about tech debt is true (I think it is), wouldn't Shopify be at a position now to pay it back? Many startups that used Rails paid it back by migrating elsewhere. So maybe Rails in its entirety is Tech Debt?

¹A cautionary sidenote, that I've learned the hard way, is that taking on tech debt is an art in itself. Not all debt is alike. Many kinds will cripple my project. Where at the unlikely moment that I do need to scale, that's impossible. Or when I do need to pivot for the umpteenth time, we cannot, without that Giant Refactoring.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

berkes2y ago

> serious learning.

That's another problem I have in this narrative. Productivity isn't measured by throwing an inexperienced developer at something and then looking how fast they get stuff done. That's learnability.

Productivity of a senior, or experienced dev, of a (large) team, of a team with high turnover, of a project over decades, all that is productivity too. And in all those categories, Rails isn't great.

wheelsOP2y ago

That's all correct.

Shopify at its offset was a CRUD app (fun fact: it started as a snowboarding shop), and in 2006, Rails was a great choice for that.

berkes2y ago

What I'm arguing, however, isn't to take on debt¹, I'm saying that productivity and performance aren't always opposites.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse