[yedpodtrzitko]

I'm not Rubyist, but when I see an article about RoR it's one of these:

"I just started using Ruby and omg it's out-of-box everything, rapid development, monkeypatching makes everything super easy, it's like second Jesus coming."

and the second category is this:

"I am working with RoR for years, maintaining/migrating anything is super painful, because everyone is monkeypatching everything, so you cant safely touch anything."

Choose wisely.

[jeffnappi]

The second category there is typically people who adopted Rails and then ignored it's culture of testing. One thing about Ruby is that you better have good test coverage if you ever want to be able to safely upgrade your dependencies.

[mrgordon]

Maybe this says something about the article writers?

Most Rails applications I see have minimal monkeypatching and I can’t remember the last time I had to debug an issue related to one. On the contrary, monkeypatching is most often used to fix issues in libraries that would otherwise require forking or pushing changes upstream to the project to fix. For example, Rails 3.2 is missing a few time duration methods from Rails 4 which Ruby 2.4 relies on so you need to add those via monkeypatch to run Ruby 2.4 with the legacy Rails version if you can’t upgrade everything at once.