I vibe with the article but I think the disruption period is going to be closer to 15 years instead of 5. The idea of billionaires giving up 20% now or 100% later is powerful.

I wonder if they used AI to write or edit any of this.

what do you think?

You can cheaply and readably give a lot of clues to both agents and humans with some assertions at the start of a method:

  raise ArgumentError.new("...") unless ...

which can include type assertions but also a lot more. The agents seem to do well with this.

I've also had good results using agents to write Crystal https://crystal-lang.org/ which is Ruby-like but does have the static types and produces blazing fast static binaries. Might be a sweet spot for coding agents if you're building some backend services. But I'd still pick Ruby on Rails for a new full stack project.

Why go halfway with Rust when you could just pick Ada SPARK? Seems like an arbitrary choice based off of rationalizing a trend.

I feel like your comment is a bit tongue in cheek and i am going to take it at face value, but I honestly been feeling increasingly more like doing verbatim what you're suggesting and i dont have a very solid justification for it.

I meant it honestly. What excuse do people have to choose anything other than mission critical technologies if the AI system can do most of the heavy lifting? Why should we settle for anything less than five 9s of uptime?

Because you pick Ada Spark if are in a certification heavy environment like Aerospace.

That seems like it would depend quite a bit on the project? I would think many nonprofits would want a webapp of some flavor, and Ruby (or Python) are still not bad choices there - my experience with Claude is that it handles Ruby well.

Agents handle Ruby just fine. I used to have to give them some stern rules about avoiding instance_variable_get etc. instead of adding accessors, but those problems have pretty much vanished in the last 6 months.

I like using Ruby with agents because the code remains short and readable.

Agentic coding is not a given anywhere.

I’m downvoting because this is basically bait without any contribution as to why you feel that way, but personally I vibe coded a very successful result by iterating a rails app and then crawling the entire site into static files (~144,000 product pages and category pages) and then stashing them all in a bucket on cloudflare free tier.

I never wrote ruby before so I could only sanity check the results and approach of what it was doing, but thanks to the automated data migrations it was very easy for me to change my mind about how I wanted data to be structured, rollback if it didn’t work etc. it is a language designed for rapid iteration.

The typescript team themselves rewrote the compiler in Go to get better use of coding agents.

They started that migration years ago. I don't remember them citing agentic coding as a reason. Do you have a source?

Not sure about the compiler but prominent users of llm agents (Mitchel Hashimoto, Armin Ronacher etc) has mentioned that Go gives better results for agentic coding.

They did it for speed, and Go was the language with the closest syntax to migrate to.

I understand why rust, but why TS? just for a front end?

Compiler errors help the chatbot find and fix problems. The equivalent in Ruby, RBS, isn't as widely adopted. Type annotations being in separate files is also inconvenient.

https://github.com/ruby/rbs

There is almost no ceremony involved in dealing with types in Rust.

And what little there is, is worth it ten-fold for all of the runtime bug headaches that you avoid compared to dynamically typed languages.

Specifically addressing the "almost no ceremony" claim and not the "totally worth it" claim:

JS:

  let person_1 = { };
  let person_2 = { parent: person_1 };
  person_1.child = person_2;

Rust:

  use std::cell::Cell;
  struct Person<'a> {
      parent: Option<&'a Person<'a>>,
      child: Cell<Option<&'a Person<'a>>>
  }

  let person_1 = Person {
      parent: None,
      child: Cell::new(None)
  };
    
  let person_2 = Person {
      parent: Some(&person_1),
      child: Cell::new(None)
  };
    
  person_1.child.set(Some(&person_2));

And that's before we start talking about function signatures and traits.

I guess that depends on how you define "think". I wouldn't say that AI thinks.

I admit the analogies aren't perfect, but the analogies are mostly used to help explain the empirical stuff I’m seeing in the real world. Are you seeing something different?

I think the better analogy is "you could give me an afternoon in the studio with Jimi Hendrix's sound engineer and the record we create would sound very different from Jimi's albums."

To the website maintainers: https://www.kanbots.dev/comparisons returns a 404

Ah, so the students were saying “moo,” not “boo.”

Most of the article deals with topic orthogonal to stack tech choices. It’s barely about the Rails Way at all. That said, I do think the Rails Guide could have a section on scaling philosophy and tradeoffs.

> no one used it.

Can you explain what you mean?

The premise of why AI will change the world is because Jill from accounting is going to make a custom reporting app.

Thing is Jill always could do that, she just didn’t leverage the information available.

Now Jill can make the reporting app, until it is sufficiently complex that the code collapses under its own weight or she finds that the numbers don’t actually mean what she thinks.

The thing that's changed is how time is no longer major limiting factor. Previously Jill would have had to learn enough about programming to make an app, whereas now she can write a few prompts and receive something good enough even if her lack of programming knowledge means the code is house-of-cards waiting to fall

No, she will receive something she thinks is good enough, but will have subtle bugs leading to wrong accounting without her realising, and potentially leaking all customer information all over the internet, and the entire business process grinding to a halt when she leaves

This is the second reference to Wittgenstein I’ve seen today in totally different contexts. Reminded me how much I vibe with his Tractatus.

French Revolution says the people win in that case but who knows.

No. The French Revolution was a revolution of lawyers, writers, and administrators, the elite who were shut out of the very highest positions. And it was unstable. The great majority of people were just cannon fodder for Napoleon.