16 ms·

I'm a big fan of ruby but doesn't saying "Pure ruby" kind of detract from rather than improve a libraries value? Ideally it would have rust/C bindings for all t

• flipandtwist 10y ago
  The reason I said that is because a lot of the other libraries I found, like Arel or Sequel, just build off of SQL to interact with databases. And the problem with that is that SQL is a terrible way to get a handle on relational algebra. It is entirely based on RA operations, yes, but it is so high level you barely feel connected to what's actually happening. Not good when you're trying to learn basic operations and how they interact with each other. That's the only reason I said "pure". Wasn't really coming from a point of view of performance or compatibility.
• semanticist 10y ago
  There's other good reasons to be "pure Ruby", educational value: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11757009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11757009 And also, while not terribly relevant in this specific case, deployment is easier if you don't have to build native libraries. Sometimes it's worth going to C bindings for runtime speed, sometimes it's better to keep it purely native for development speed or other reasons.
• tomc1985 10y ago
  Why? I hate libs with native compilation. Bundle install doesn't always "just work" then... now you're somewhat bound to your compiler toolchain and whatever platforms your native code is compatible with (which oftentimes doesn't seem to include Windows, without a ton of extra effort)