3 ms·

Nope, they weren't designed to replace Java - but that's one of the ways their ecosystems pitch them today.

raganwald 17y ago
Quite honestly the subject of "Replacing Java with Ruby/Python/..." is so complex I think it's a minefield to argue either for or against it in less than an essay. Which organization? Product or internal app? Consulting gig or internal development? Telephone book of specs or stakeholders iteratively refining requirements? &c. &c. It's true that I'm not writing Java any more, but the Java apps I used to write are still there making money for their owners, and none of them have called me up to say they want to do all new development in Ruby. It's more a case of there being new kinds of opportunities afforded by a different style of development. And this is perfectly in accordance with the theory of disruptive technology put forth in "The Innovator's Dilemma." So what was my point again? Oh yes, I agree from time to time there is talk of replacing Java, but it is a little more complex than a wholesale project-for-project replacement with all other factors remaining fixed. If I were pitching it, I would pitch the benefits of a new way of developing software, and only when that point is made would I point out that Ruby and Javascript are tools that suit the new way more than Java. I'd rather do that than pitch the languages and spring the "gotcha" that you'll have to change the way you develop software to be successful with the new languages.
rbanffy 17y ago
Were they designed to replace something, they would fail. C# and .NET were designed to replace Java. The result is that it's mostly confined to Windows. What Ruby did is to beget Rails. Rails does replace Java (and PHP, and .NET) in a lot of scenarios with many advantages. Ruby was not designed to replace Java the same way Java was not designed to replace COBOL.
- rufugee 17y ago
  Rails != Ruby. Play (http://www.playframework.org http://www.playframework.org) successfully replicates the Rails experience in Java (finally). What Rails did was introduce a new way of thinking about pragmatic approaches to developing CRUD web apps. While ruby apologists (I once was one!) will argue that Rails couldn't have existed without Ruby, that's simply not the case. Rails was just there first...a trailblazer. But Rails could've been written in perl, python, or even, as Play shows, Java.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    Sorry, but Ruby pretty much is Rails. There is very little Ruby that's not written to be used in conjunction with Rails. Play, while impressive, still retains most of the ugliness of Java. It's hard to compare it to a DSL like Rails.
    - raganwald 17y ago
      > Sorry, but Ruby pretty much is Rails. Nope. That's like saying cycling pretty much is riding around on the street on sub $200 machines just because that's what most people do with a bicycle. To you there may be relatively little Ruby that isn't used in conjunction with Rails but that is not the same thing as saying that there is very little in an absolute sense. And surprisingly, the uses outside of Rails may be the most influential in terms of its direction and future as a language, thanks to the particular circumstances of Matz and what interests him. To cherry-pick an example, he is loathe to work on things that would have the side-effect of slowing Ruby's startup time. This is a tradeoff that is good for long-running server applications like J2EE stacks, but bad for writing scripts. Of course, there's JRuby which goes in the other direction. We'll see what happens with that kind of thing.

Quite honestly the subject of "Replacing Java with Ruby/Python/..." is so complex I think it's a minefield to argue either for or against it in less than an essay. Which organization? Product or internal app? Consulting gig or internal development? Telephone book of specs or stakeholders iteratively refining requirements? &c. &c. It's true that I'm not writing Java any more, but the Java apps I used to write are still there making money for their owners, and none of them have called me up to say they want to do all new development in Ruby. It's more a case of there being new kinds of opportunities afforded by a different style of development. And this is perfectly in accordance with the theory of disruptive technology put forth in "The Innovator's Dilemma." So what was my point again? Oh yes, I agree from time to time there is talk of replacing Java, but it is a little more complex than a wholesale project-for-project replacement with all other factors remaining fixed. If I were pitching it, I would pitch the benefits of a new way of developing software, and only when that point is made would I point out that Ruby and Javascript are tools that suit the new way more than Java. I'd rather do that than pitch the languages and spring the "gotcha" that you'll have to change the way you develop software to be successful with the new languages.

rbanffy 17y ago

Were they designed to replace something, they would fail. C# and .NET were designed to replace Java. The result is that it's mostly confined to Windows. What Ruby did is to beget Rails. Rails does replace Java (and PHP, and .NET) in a lot of scenarios with many advantages. Ruby was not designed to replace Java the same way Java was not designed to replace COBOL.

rufugee 17y ago
Rails != Ruby. Play (http://www.playframework.org http://www.playframework.org) successfully replicates the Rails experience in Java (finally). What Rails did was introduce a new way of thinking about pragmatic approaches to developing CRUD web apps. While ruby apologists (I once was one!) will argue that Rails couldn't have existed without Ruby, that's simply not the case. Rails was just there first...a trailblazer. But Rails could've been written in perl, python, or even, as Play shows, Java.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Sorry, but Ruby pretty much is Rails. There is very little Ruby that's not written to be used in conjunction with Rails. Play, while impressive, still retains most of the ugliness of Java. It's hard to compare it to a DSL like Rails.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    > Sorry, but Ruby pretty much is Rails. Nope. That's like saying cycling pretty much is riding around on the street on sub $200 machines just because that's what most people do with a bicycle. To you there may be relatively little Ruby that isn't used in conjunction with Rails but that is not the same thing as saying that there is very little in an absolute sense. And surprisingly, the uses outside of Rails may be the most influential in terms of its direction and future as a language, thanks to the particular circumstances of Matz and what interests him. To cherry-pick an example, he is loathe to work on things that would have the side-effect of slowing Ruby's startup time. This is a tradeoff that is good for long-running server applications like J2EE stacks, but bad for writing scripts. Of course, there's JRuby which goes in the other direction. We'll see what happens with that kind of thing.