> Now, this line of code is not simple, it’s easy to write it, but the code is extremely complicated under the hood because:

Every time I hear someone complain about Rails, I ask myself if this person is really just complaining about how complex web dev is. I've never seen a complaint that passed this smell test.

Yes, Rails abstracts over a veritable shit-ton of complicated domains. The problem is, that complexity isn't going to go away if you decide not to use those abstractions. Every single one of that laundry-list of things that ActiveRecord::Base.create does will have to be implemented again, by you, badly, if you choose to roll your own.

It boggles my mind why developers don't take the web seriously as a domain, like it's not real coding or something. It's the worst instance of bike-shedding I've ever seen.

Rails isn't perfect, by any means. But Rails is not a black box, it's all free software. You are more than free to re-implement anything Rails does yourself and release it as a gem. Modularity and flexibility are built right in. It seems incredibly odd to leave Rails over this. For what, Java? Unbelievable.

> about how complex web dev is

Isn't that part of the problem? Webdev is complex. But it feels to me like it's been overcomplicated by a factor of 100. It doesn't have to be.

Absolutely. At the end of the day you're doing some string substitutions then sending a text file over a socket. We were doing that in the early 90s! But to do it now we use these surreal Rube Goldberg contraptions with a hundred layers of abstraction.

And all programming itself is is turning strings of 1s and 0s into other strings of 1s and 0s.

Asking web dev to be less complex is like asking financial markets to be simpler. Websites are market tools, tools have to retain a competitive edge. You can't afford to ignore market trends. You can't afford to wait until everything is well-defined. You can't let craftsmanship get in the way of shipping.

You can buck the rules yourself and operate on whichever side of the tradeoff you want to operate in, but you can't expect everybody else to follow the same rules you do.

I mean, if you don't like the web, then by all means find a different domain. I personally love it, and find it absolutely fascinating. With the right tools, (Rails) the complexity is manageable.

I don't think the web's complexities are intrinsic. It's layers and layers of crap built on top of crap. Computers are so mind numbingly fast that in some respects it's impressive we've made the web as slow as it is.

Which isn't to say that the crap mountain wasn't the best choice. It may very well be the pragmatic choice. The highest net benefit choice. But I don't believe it's intrinsic. I don't believe it has to be this way. Which means it's at least worth considering alternate paths. Even if in the end we picked the same way.

I work in video games. Currently working in VR. Where you absolutely must hit 90fps and never drop a frame. A certain degree of craftsmanship is required to ship. Layers and layers of abstraction on abstraction need not apply.

Sort of unrelated, but any suggestions for experienced backend developer who wants to get into VR? I'm working on learning 3D graphics and c++, but could use a bit of direction.

If you want to produce compelling VR experiences then I'd recommend you download Unity. You should be able to start making real, valid prototypes for different types of VR interactions in under a week.

If you want to graphics then I might recommend you poke at http://humus.name/index.php?page=3D or https://github.com/bkaradzic/bgfx. But graphics isn't my specialty so my thoughts aren't the strongest.

If you want to learn C++ then... that's an interesting question I've not thought of before. Maybe I'd start with "Learn C the Hard Way"? http://c.learncodethehardway.org/book/ I'm not as much of a C fanboy/C++ hater as other game devs. I quite like C++11 lambdas and move semantics. But I hate boost and it's ilk. So starting with C and later adding a dash of C++ seems like a good way to start.