Conventions instead of decisions. Rails gets a real product in front of real users quickly, and it stays maintainable if you keep to the conventions.
Its strength is how much you don't have to decide, which is also the rule for keeping it healthy.
The standard parts of an application come nearly free, so the budget goes to what makes your product different.
A conventional Rails app can be picked up by someone new quickly, which protects you from depending on one person.
Database migrations, background jobs, mail and testing come as part of the framework rather than as choices.
Most problems you'll hit have a well-trodden answer, which is worth more than novelty.
The most common Rails work we do. It starts with a written assessment of the code, the tests, the data and the deployment, which is yours whether or not you continue with us.
Rails and Ruby both move, and an application two or three majors behind gets no security patches. We upgrade in stages with the test suite as the safety net, building one if there's not one.
Rails still builds this kind of thing faster than almost anything else, and a great many of them exist already.
Rails' conventions make a competent admin interface cheap, which is exactly what an internal tool should be.
So a mobile app or a partner can integrate without the front end being in the way.
Written for someone deciding, not for someone who already knows. Skip it if you do.
A web framework for Ruby that made a bet: fewer decisions, more conventions. If you name things the way Rails expects, an enormous amount of code writes itself. That bet is why so many products from the last fifteen years were built in it, and why they were built quickly.
Rails applications age in a particular way. The convention that made them fast to build makes them easy to extend carelessly, and a decade later the model that started as a customer holds forty responsibilities. The framework isn't the problem; the accumulated shortcuts are, and they are fixable in place.
A product that needs to exist in three months and be changed constantly afterwards. Nothing has really beaten Rails for that, and a small team goes a long way in it.
Rails 6.1 and earlier are out of support. So is Ruby 3.0 and below. If you're on either, the upgrade is the highest-value work available, and it's normally a sequence of small steps rather than one frightening one.
No security patches. Everything else on the roadmap is a lower priority than this.
An upgrade without tests is a gamble. Building enough coverage to make the change safe is usually the first invoice, and it's worth it.
Very common with Rails, and less bad than it feels. The conventions mean a new team can find its way around quickly, once someone has written down what is there.
For business applications with a database and users, yes. It's unfashionable and extremely productive, and it's actively maintained.
Yes. We start by getting the tests running and the dependencies current, because an app you can't safely deploy is the real problem.
Well past the point most businesses reach. Scaling problems are usually in the database and the queries, not in the framework.
Usually not. A rewrite risks losing years of business rules nobody wrote down. Upgrading and cleaning in place is cheaper and less dangerous nine times in ten, and we'll tell you when it's the tenth.
Normally yes, in stages, with work continuing between them. A single big-bang upgrade is what makes freezes necessary.
A few lines are enough to start. You get a reply within two working days.
