> I think the author went too deep into details here, as this crowd is full of people who are going to be able to rip pieces of this article to shreds.
No doubt here! I know there's a lot of nitpicking, but that's just my experience so far. I wanted to make it clear by removing all "we" or "you" words from the post to make sure I'm not saying my opinion is the definitively right one :)
> Rails is not the only choice that does so.
Absolutely, the only two reasons I went with Rails is because Ruby looks beautiful to me and I was following the news in Rails world for years.
A lot of JS tooling that popped up in the last 10 years is amazing. The React way of building a UI makes a lot of sense to me and I like it way more than HTML + JS combo from the old days. Also, using JS for both frontend and backend is convenient and great for hiring teams.
But, after years of making SPAs, it gets tiring to assemble all of the pieces from scratch every time. I don't want to configure things, I want to build my ideas.
I should've been more clearer. This post isn't comparing Rails to any framework out there.
What I was trying to say is that Rails got a lot of things right and it's making me productive, because I don't have to make the same decisions over and over again when making a JS app. Rails made those decisions for me and the only thing left for me is to build my app.
I myself like Next.js and Remix a lot, but they still leave you to spend time making basic decisions, like how to organize your project or how to implement background jobs.
That's why I'd love to see more conventions and less configuration in the JS land.
> I'd love to see more conventions and less configuration in the JS land.
Which is what the parent post is saying NestJS offers. I'm not familiar with it, so can't comment on the veracity of that claim, but I think you might have missed their point, perhaps because they confusingly called it "Nest.js" which could be mistaken for "Next.js".
You could compare Red Delicious to Granny Smith and a programmer will come along and say it's an unrelated variety. The problem is even if you want to use a larger library/framework, there are over ten thousand to choose from. The JS ecosystem is built upon the Unix philosophy of "Do one thing and do it well." So there is a reason React is not a framework and that is not your fault. If you do not use a Rails copycat, you are left with many decisions for packages. Nobody has time for that so everyone just uses what is most popular. So the comparison is fair, it's just a comparison between philosophies.
That's cool, if that app works for you, keep using it.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch or use Rosefinch anyway. I built it because I needed it exactly like this and shared it here in case there's someone else who wants something like this too.
> I'm curious whether you've considered putting this in the mac app store or not, or what your reasoning was around that.
I haven't put it on Mac App Store for two reasons primarily:
1. I already figured out licensing, integration with Paddle, building and distribution for my previous app, so I was able to reuse 99% of it
2. I wanted to have full control over rolling out updates quickly in case a critical bug appears
> Also curious if you did beta testing if you could tell us anything about what that process was like
I tested it myself, because I was building this app for my needs, so I kind of knew exactly what I wanted it to do. I also received regular extensive feedback from a friend, who's also helped me shape the app a lot.
There are great apps out there, but all of them are too complicated and too powerful. What I wanted is to have a nice minimalistic app where I could collect all my queries that I often use for debugging various stuff. That's why I won't add things like data editing or schema changes to Rosefinch. If you need extensive features like that, you'll definitely be better of with SQLiteStudio or alternatives ;)
