• GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    171·
    14 hours ago

    it’s hilariously depressing how most people hate on Ruby because of the shit Rails does.

    also, Sheon Han(the author), is a corpo-shilling hack that writes predominantly fluff pieces for his silicon valley friends and neighbors.

    don’t believe what he writes because he only gets paid when his opinions garner traffic.

    want to know why Ruby still has a following? same reason why Java is still holding on. Same reason why COBOL and FORTRAN is still going. because it works and people still use it.

  • Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
    6·
    11 hours ago

    Hmm, I don’t have too large of a sample size, but I don’t feel like Ruby programs are buggier than Python programs, on average. Not being the language for programming beginners and data scientists, probably aides that impression, though…

  • xxce2AAb@feddit.dk
    201·
    15 hours ago

    Maybe if I could read the article I’d have something to say about that. I guess we’ll never know, and that’s probably for the best.

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
      1·
      7 hours ago

      No problem with 3rd-party scripts and frames blocked.

      Seriously, this lets me read more articles than with only adblocking.

        • xxce2AAb@feddit.dk
          11·
          15 hours ago

          Disclaimer: I’m not Ruby programmer. I evaluated it once, saw no particular reason to use it instead of Python and promptly forgot about it.

          With that said, the specific criticism(s) are:

          • Poor performance. Sure. Ruby does appear to be somewhat slower than Python, but I’m more concerned about the peak memory consumption which is admittedly frequently pretty terrifying. Mind you, if I need high performance, I’m not likely to be using either Ruby or Python. It’s fine for automation scripts, rapid prototyping or experimentation, hypothesis validation, moderate data processing, analysis and visualization, but yes: If you build your (supposedly) hyper-scalable website on Rails or use it for the system software for your embedded device, you’re going to have a bad time. Every tool has its place (except Brainfuck). Don’t use a hammer when you should be using a screwdriver.

          • The above also covers the railing against rails, about which I have no further comment as I’ve never used it. Maybe it’s nice, but if you’re working on something with more concurrent users than your homelab automation UX, there’s undoubtedly better alternatives.

          …And that appears to be it. So it boiled to down to “performance”. Does that in and of itself make Ruby “not a serious programming language”. Well, if it does, then the same applies to Python. Does it mean that there’s probably a better alternative for any given application? Probably yes.

    • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
      2·
      14 hours ago

      Me too. What happened there? I thought it might be because some of my browser extensions block few scripts and other elements. Enabling some of the stuff didn’t make reveal the article, so I lost interest. Or is it paid?

      • xxce2AAb@feddit.dk
        2·
        13 hours ago

        I honestly didn’t care enough to spend time looking into it as I’m not being paid to make Wired’s website functional. Thankfully, BrikoX was the real MVP and ensured nobody has to actually go there to access the content by posting an archive link.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    112·
    15 hours ago

    Ruby was the most approachable language I found and sheparded me from my limits of bash scripting and Windows batch file scripting into the next level.

    The author derides Ruby’s easy readability and syntax because it has issues scaling to large enterprise applications. I don’t disagree there is a performance ceiling, but how many hundreds of thousands of Ruby projects never rose to that level of need? The author is also forgetting that Ruby had Rubygems for easy modular functional additions years before Python eventually got pip.

    I don’t write in Ruby anymore, and Python has evolved to be much more approachable than it was when Ruby was in its prime, however if someone came to me today saying they wanted the easier programming language to learn that could build full applications on Linux, OSX, Windows, and the web, I’d still point them to Ruby with the caveat that it would have limits and they would be better served by Python in the long run.