re: Rails 6 to include new Action Text framework VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: I've used both ActiveStorage and trix. From what I've seen, both are great separately. I haven't used them together yet. This seems like a natural ...
 

Provide a nice set of defaults for people wanting to build web apps and easy ways to disable or change those defaults.

I'd prefer something more along the lines of "provide a nice set of defaults for the basics" and have an officially sanctioned set of gems (ActiveStorage, ActionText, ActionCable etc) that are easy to add, i.e. add to bundle (could even be in there already and just need to be commented in), run bundle install, run the generator. Seems more sensible to me than including everything and the kitchen sink and having people remove things.

 

I tend to agree. I was setting up a new Rails 5 app recently in a very specific way and felt like it took a while just to turn off all the stuff I didn't want in there. While I dug CoffeeScript a few years ago, I'm more inclined to do ES7 nowdays, and I don't want to use minitest, and I don't want to dev on Sqllite, and don't even get me started on Webpack... Maybe because I don't necc. build projects in "The Rails Way", which could be my own flaw.

Wasn't that the whole point of Rails "templates"? Wouldn't it make more sense to just point people toward a "kitchen-sink" template and have it do all the things - versus having a bunch of things you don't need in there by default? Or, add a slim version to rails new. I was happy to see --api, maybe there should now be a --slim without all the extras?

I'd also question whether this is a "good thing" for a new rails user. In the beginning, it was very simple, things made sense, and it was fairly compact (compared to, say, a default .NET web project). Now even as a long time rails user, it seems WAY more complex than it needs to be.

code of conduct - report abuse