On 50/50, yes, we write lots of JavaScript for Ajax. We've done that since 2005 with Tada list. The debate here is over whether going client-side MVC for everything is a pleasant experience. I contend that it is not.
The maintainability story with pjax+caching is exactly the same as its always been with a Rails app. We just celebrated 8 years with Basecamp. That's a pretty good run.
You can write shit, unmaintainable code in anything, but to point at pjax and granular key-based caching schemes as somehow specifically prone to this? What? That doesn't make any sense to me.
We also had a swanky in-house client-side MVC framework cooking with Cinco. We used it once for Basecamp Mobile and while it was a good experience and the end result was great, it did little to sway my thinking on client-side MVC being a step forward in programming happiness (one of the key things I evaluate platforms by).
Again, it's perfectly fine to have a different opinion. I don't like the aesthetics nor the sensibilities of Python code much, but I certainly respect that people can make cool shit with it and even that they might enjoy the process.
The hoopla here is over the terribly flawed notion that client-side MVC is somehow The Future of web development and if you don't follow that pattern, you're living in The Past. Ha.
"You can write shit, unmaintainable code in anything, but to point at pjax and granular key-based caching schemes as somehow specifically prone to this? What? That doesn't make any sense to me."
To take things to the extreme, if you chose to write Basecamp Next in pure x86 assembly (for speed, of course), I think we'd all agree that the code would be much more prone to maintainability problems. Similarly, it is plausible that choosing to write Basecamp Next entirely with pjax+backend MVC+granular key-based caching could be more prone to maintainability problems. Not that I have any particular reason to believe it will, but we're wondering if there are any particular reasons you believe it won't?
Because neither of those elements have any bearing on maintainability beyond what is customary for a Rails application. The wonders of pjax is that it doesn't require you to change your application style and structure at all, so it has zero impact on maintainability.
The granular caching scheme is similarly just a fragment caching setup using key-based expiration. Nothing new here, just that we used it to full effect.
So you're free to claim that writing Ruby on Rails applications are somehow inherently hard to maintain, but you'd be fighting against 8+ years of evidence to the contrary. Versus, you know, a very short amount of comparable evidence for JavaScript MVC applications based on current, recent frameworks.
We also had a swanky in-house client-side MVC framework cooking with Cinco. We used it once for Basecamp Mobile and while it was a good experience and the end result was great, it did little to sway my thinking on client-side MVC being a step forward in programming happiness (one of the key things I evaluate platforms by).
I'd like to hear more about this, ideally in a blog post or two. I think a lot of people were waiting for Cinco's release, certainly I was, because we wanted to see what you'd do with it. The fact that you have Basecamp Next running without it certainly says something, but I'd be a lot more interested to find out what the specific tradeoffs were.
The maintainability story with pjax+caching is exactly the same as its always been with a Rails app. We just celebrated 8 years with Basecamp. That's a pretty good run.
You can write shit, unmaintainable code in anything, but to point at pjax and granular key-based caching schemes as somehow specifically prone to this? What? That doesn't make any sense to me.
We also had a swanky in-house client-side MVC framework cooking with Cinco. We used it once for Basecamp Mobile and while it was a good experience and the end result was great, it did little to sway my thinking on client-side MVC being a step forward in programming happiness (one of the key things I evaluate platforms by).
Again, it's perfectly fine to have a different opinion. I don't like the aesthetics nor the sensibilities of Python code much, but I certainly respect that people can make cool shit with it and even that they might enjoy the process.
The hoopla here is over the terribly flawed notion that client-side MVC is somehow The Future of web development and if you don't follow that pattern, you're living in The Past. Ha.