4 ms·
I'm very likely older than you are, so... no. It was very good at the time. Not so much today. We've learned a lot in language design and Ruby feels very antiq
by hota_mazi 10y ago
I'm very likely older than you are, so... no.
It was very good at the time. Not so much today. We've learned a lot in language design and Ruby feels very antiquated (mostly because it's dynamically typed).
- galfarragem 10y agoTry Crystal, her younger sister. Just as beautiful but more nerdy and fast thinking.
- matt4077 10y agoCan we stop using women as a metaphor now? Especially if beauty is the first criterium and she's apparently just waiting to be "tried"? Thx
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tinco 10y agoWhich statically typed language do you feel offers the same level of developer comfort as Ruby? My favorite statically typed languages are Haskell, Rust and C# but I prefer Ruby over them whenever possible.
- hota_mazi 10y ago> Which statically typed language do you feel offers the same level of developer comfort as Ruby? So far, Kotlin has hit that sweet spot for me.
- hashkb 10y agoWhat have we learned? Does LISP feel antiquated to you as well? How about Java?
- goatlover 10y agoWhat have we learned in language design that wasn't known prior to Ruby? It's not like static vs dynamic hasn't existed in languages since the 50s to early 60s. Alan Kay, in creating Smalltalk (granted in the 70s), was motivated by the limitations in static type systems. If you think a language like Haskell has solved that limitation by providing an extensible form of static typing, fine, but it existed before Ruby (1990). Elm isn't breaking new ground on this front.