> But today's requirements in terms of UX / dynamism (is that a word?) require you to end up building things differently, so even if you get up and running fast with a rails app, you'd end up having to build up a pretty hefty JS stack in the end, so you'd basically be delaying the inevitable.
I'm starting to wonder to what degree this is actually true.
Most people I know, all along the spectrum of 'computer literacy', complain about the slowness and brokenness of many sites and web apps. On the other hand I've never heard anyone complain about a lack of 'dynamism'.
To be clear, some degree of interactivity is often useful. But I can't help but feel that it's quite often not at all necessary to move things like routing, validation, and (almost) complete page changes to the client side, at least not as long as it increases complexity to such a degree.
I came to say something similar, it’s easy in tech to see something could be “better” but from the outside most people just want something that works and is easy to use (pretty is bonus).
Secondly I’d argue that if “dynamicism” matters, choosing rails or Django doesn’t hinder that ability as a lot of that is simply presentation layer concerns.
I'm starting to wonder to what degree this is actually true.
Most people I know, all along the spectrum of 'computer literacy', complain about the slowness and brokenness of many sites and web apps. On the other hand I've never heard anyone complain about a lack of 'dynamism'.
To be clear, some degree of interactivity is often useful. But I can't help but feel that it's quite often not at all necessary to move things like routing, validation, and (almost) complete page changes to the client side, at least not as long as it increases complexity to such a degree.