> what's the difference if my agent uses fucking Next, Nuxt, Rails or Django?

The claim seems quite clear to me: "convention over configuration allows coding agents to be more effective".

But yes, I do agree that the main line should say what Ruby on Rails actually is, not why it's good for your agent.

There was a post last week about the best programming language for LLMs, and in the comments people loved Go, with the claim being it's very opinionated and there's really only one way of doing things. I'd say the same is mostly true for Rails apps as well.

However having worked with Typescript for 8 years now... I'm not sure I could go back to Ruby without types. For LLMs thats important as well, the more guard rails you can give them the better. What's the state of type checkers today?

	▲	apsurd 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		TS is very AI native to the point i'd agree it's near magical in terms of contract. However, the fact its still the js ecosystem with react, thing is even though it's super productive in churning out the code, there's too many possible ways to do something. it's unwieldy. For example Claude is obsessed with making react context providers. it'll make tons of them to power every feature. and your app will happily hold 20 layers of russian doll'd state in memory with no way to link to anything. you have to tell it, no don't do that. i need you to power this thing through the router, through the url. and that has to be designed cohesively. and that's very different from the context free-for-all.
	▲	Kerrick 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Ruby has types with RBS and Steep now. It's a lot like using .d.ts sidecar files alongside JavaScript, via jsconfig.json configuring tsc. I like it a lot!
	▲	gommm 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Personally I love rust for agents because of types. In the ruby world there's sorbet and rbs so would be interesting to try that.

▲

operatingthetan 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>The claim seems quite clear to me: "convention over configuration allows coding agents to be more effective".

The agents pick up conventions from the extensive code in their corpus and aggressively follow them. I don't think Rails being explicit about it adds a lot unless someone is prone to prompting towards absurdity.

▲

gfody 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

doesn’t forcing your agent to think in ruby put it at huge disadvantage though? since the language isn’t that popular it can’t have learned it as well as say python or Java?

	▲	hrmtst93837 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Python does have a bigger pool of examples, but agents usually get tripped up by missing context about specific frameworks more than by language syntax. The real obstacle for LLMs is understanding Rails' implicit conventions and magic, not the Ruby language itself.
	▲	barrkel 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Claude munches through Ruby just fine, all day long.
	▲	vidarh 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The frontier models all handle Ruby just fine. So does th cheap Chinese models like Mini, Qwen, Deepseek.