upvote
It seems to me, so far, everyone moved one level up.

- A layperson can now build one a solo developer can do

- A solo dev can now build what an agency of web development can do

- An agency of web development can now build native apps similar to what large corporation can do

- Large corporation can now tackle even more ambitious projects

Which makes sense given what got automated. This is with the current tech, people still exploring the full potential, but if that turns out to be the case then I'd argue the software market will grow substantially and we are just having an adjustment period.

reply
And the results are 1999 websites like hey.com?
reply
The current Hey was designed before vibe coding. They started using AI very recently.
reply
What is wrong with the website?

Have you seen the older apps built by devs? or all the other bootstrap themes?

reply
There is nothing wrong with designing like in the year 1999. But claiming improvements when all great websites like Amazon in 2004, the original GitHub, Google etc. were before AI is a bit weak.

He is just promoting Shopify's vibe coding for merchants. I bet on Shopify pivoting to vibe coded Rust soon because of "security".

reply
> If you watch the talk, he is not anti-rails.

He explicitly said he still loves ruby as a language and thinks Rails is well suited for a future with AI coding.

It's interesting how this stuff gets spun on social media by people who don't watch the content.

reply
It looks like he spent about 4 minutes out of the 1:03 making that point.

I can't but help think that he would have spent longer on it if that's what he really thought.

I don't think he believes in Rails any more.

It's clear that he was more excited about thing that are not ruby or rails and now considers rust better suited to the output of AI.

To be honest, I could see rust taking over from typescript/javascript as an output language for the web too. If no one needs to read source code any more why not use rust for everything?

reply
I don't think anyone should really believe in Rails at this point. It was a monumental leap forward at the time but other stacks have shown that there are better ways.
reply
I learned Ruby in 2007 people have been saying that about Rails every year since

I love Elixir/Erlang but we all know the "better stack" these new devs will choose instead for a web app is a maze of React, supabase, and Auth0.

reply
It doesn't matter if Rails is well suited for AI or not. Now, there's less incentive and reasons to use it.
reply
When I started as rails dev in 2013, it was really the top solution for producing MVP fast. Now, I don’t think that’s the case and most of the incentives are gone if we are no longer writing code by hand
reply
So what would you pick for producing an MVP web app fast that you also want to run in production, maintain, patch and scale that has a solid eco-system of pre-built libraries you can just plug in to solve problems?
reply
> AI doesn't mean layoffs, it means your teams can do much more than they could do before.

That sounds like layoffs lol.

reply
At least within my circle, that’s not really the case. Instead, what I’m seeing is more of a hiring freeze, with the budget being used to empower existing employees through AI. Which I think is a more reasonable take.
reply
it sounds like leverage

as a solo: you can build and ship more in your own time

as a startup: you can iterate and scale more with more velocity and less growing pains

as an enterprise: people with ideas but not a technical background can put their tokens where their mouth is and build their own interfaces, personal apps, ask their own questions, ship their own features without having to navigate layer 8 and play games for resources

reply
Why does it sound like layoffs? If you keep the team size the same and use the productivity increase to deliver more business value, how is that layoffs?
reply
Because the limiting factor for what you can deliver has never been, and still isn’t, developer productivity.

Talking point: I think it is communication, and AI (notably information exchange in “Claudish”) is not as effective there.

reply
If I figure out a way to make my workers produce 10 times more widgets each, it doesn't automatically follow that there is a market for the extra 9 widgets. Otherwise I would have hired 9 extra workers before that invention to fulfill the market demand.

Making the widget cheaper doesn't necessarily create demand either. I will not buy 10 times more toothbrushes or writing pens if their prices suddenly decreased to 1 cent.

The demand for software or features will not increase at the speed of our ability to produce them.

reply
He's not anti-rails. He just won't be using it.
reply
> His business could never afford to have a dev team that built and supported six different native apps

It’s his business decision to save on native app development costs to increase his (generous?) profit margins.

reply
One of the things I admire most about Basecamp is that they are a bootstrapped, profitable business. There's no shame in running a business this way. The world would be more resilient if more business owners grew sustainably instead of soaking up endless invester funding and losing money year after year before enshittifying in a desperate attempt to repay their overlords.
reply
Yes! I wish I had more than one upvote to give!
reply
[dead]
reply
> Rails is so into agentic coding that they publish benchmarks of how effective different models are for building with rails

To each their own, but I think using Rails in the era of agents is probably a mistake. It has 2 big problems IMO.

(a) A ton of footguns that an agent can and will miss on occasion, and as we manually review less and less code, we will also miss it, and

(b) security on the web has become increasingly important due to hostile AI agents, and while rails has great secure conventions (see (a)), it's still easier to screw up something and not catch it until after it's deployed because there are simply less guardrails in place (dynamic types, no compile, slow tests, generally bad performance profile).

reply
Not sure if you’re speaking from experience or just being theoretical here. We’re using Rails and it’s been great. Maintenance and upgrades have been a breeze.

All this static vs dynamic stuff doesn’t really matter anymore. AI doesn’t care. You just need to close the feedback loop with tests, linting, a compiler, or whatever else gives it a clear signal.

Simple as that.

reply
If it doesn't matter I will just pick the cheapest to run (the static ones).
reply
What languages are best suited for development with agentic coding?
reply
Rust is used a lot. Elixir/Phoenix comes up often. You’re looking for something statically typed with string guarantees and as FP as possible to make unit testing easier.
reply
Rust for sure. Builds become a problem eventually though. Elixir is much more interesting now that they added types (I think they're doing more with this still?). I quite like Gleam from a human (non-agent) perspective.
reply
I've been using Rust more and more for specific tasks in my Elixir saas app, the two play really well together.
reply
the only substantive difference I've noticed is between languages with a proof system and those without, where with a proof system is orders of magnitude better for agentic work.
reply
In my experience, Go. It was designed to be idiot-proof. It's very verbose, not very expressive, compiles fast for quick feedback loops, strict autoformatter, plenty of examples in models' training data.
reply
OCaml.
reply
>His business could never afford to have a dev team that built and supported six different native apps

I have a hard time believing that, considering his hobby of racing cars and commissioning one-off hypercars. Unless it's that his business could never afford that dev team after DHH takes his salary.

reply
> TLDR: DHH isn't anti-rails, he is pro-agentic coding.

That's an opinion, not a summary though. The way how DHH behaved is really awkward in the last years. See the "let's shoot down wolves" blog entry here:

https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a

That DHH is into AI agents everywhere is easy to see, but if you go to rails-con, would you not expect this to be about rails as such, and people? Now it's about rust - and AI. Controlled by big corporations. Yikes - some people must be upset about having gone there to listen to DHH preaching about an agentic future.

Edit: I also watched parts of the recent youtube video about rails. I could not focus on the content because DHH's style was so strange. I've seen that style before - nothingburger talks. Look at phrases he used such as "I have retired from being a professional programmer/software engineer". This is all aimed to hype up "agentic coding is the future". Rails is dead - that video is all the proof one needs. DHH shifted gears to AI, and it is quite similar to when he first promoted rails. But now it is about AI, not rails.

reply
Do the teams fully understand the code that they are committing? Are the teams reviewing each others code or are agents? When agents do all the coding, and perhaps the reviewing, and the patching what is left of the team? People lose connection to their work, and the social bonds between workers begins to erode.(1) DHH's speech seems like a weird eulogy for the entire Rails community, although many of us saw this coming several years ago.

Also, I hate native apps. FWIW most devs I know actively try to avoid them.

(1) https://www.uclawjournal.org/how-ai-destroys-institutions/

reply
Most devs I know who hate native apps are either web devs trying to embed web tech into everything they touch, or they just hate Apple.

Most users don’t care. What they do care about is performance, and native is usually the easiest way to get there.

For your AI workflow questions, it depends. With or without AI, those decisions depend on the organisation’s direction, the team’s capabilities, and their preferences. Did your org have a single answer for the best programming language, framework, or workflow even before AI? There was never a single right answer to any of that.

reply
I hate native apps. There are use cases better suited to native apps but often it's just not what I want.

You have little to no control over privacy, tracking or advertising compared to the web. That's left to the original developer and there's nothing you can do about it.

You can't do things like disable autoplaying videos. Often you can't even copy text without taking a screen shot. On a phone it's also much easier to zoom random parts of the screen in a browser compared to a native app.

There are legitimate reasons to prefer the web to native apps.

reply