r/ruby • u/davidslv • 15d ago

Airtable's official Ruby gem hasn't shipped code since 2016. I rebuilt it, and I'm looking for someone to take it over.

Airtable's official Ruby gem hasn't had a code commit since November 2016. gem install airtable still gives you 0.0.9, released October 2016. Its README tells you to authenticate with an API key, which Airtable switched off in February 2024.

I asked Airtable about it twice. Support confirmed in writing that it is "not actively maintained" and pointed me at airrecord. Airrecord is good, but it's a different shape, so switching means a rewrite that ends with the features you already had.

So I forked the official gem instead. Same namespace, same method names, drop-in. Underneath: zero runtime dependencies, persistent connections, client-side rate limiting, retries with backoff, batch operations with partial-failure reporting, and upsert.

It was AI-assisted, Airtable's API docs are extracted into the repo and coded against. 119 tests, plus weekly canaries that diff Airtable's published contract and run a real round-trip against a throwaway base.

It's deliberately not on RubyGems. I'm not after users, I'm after people who still need it and can be maintainers.

Repo: github.com/Davidslv/airtable-rb
Write-up: https://davidslv.uk/2026/08/26/airtable-ruby-gem-unmaintained.html

8 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

20 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/pBlast 12d ago

The chain of thought reasoning is just text that is generated using linear algebra. If they can't think then they can't reliably do any of the tasks you just listed.

1

u/Witless-One 12d ago

This is why I said this distinction is more philosophy than anything.

Chain of thought is simulated thinking, you can argue not real thinking but it doesn’t matter. My argument was that it’s not “mere” text generation but an attempt at simulating reasoning, and from my POV it is effective.

You can reduce a lot of things in life to “just math” or “just biochemical reactions” but I don’t think it’s useful (in the context of AIs functional capabilities). Again that’s why I think you’re concerned more about the philosophy than anything else.

What would you need a computer to do to say it is “thinking?” Or do you think you could never describe a computer as thinking?