19 ms·
> it doesn't sound like it brings anything new to the table A fast and typed Ruby, isn't it enough? ;)
by galfarragem 10y ago
> it doesn't sound like it brings anything new to the table
A fast and typed Ruby, isn't it enough? ;)
- lmm 10y agoOCaml (well, actually Scala in my case, but I can understand why people wouldn't want to have to use the JVM) is already that, as far as I can see. What is it that Crystal offers that OCaml doesn't?
- galfarragem 10y agoA gentle learning curve for developers with a Ruby background.
- coldtea 10y agoDoesn't share the fugly OCaml syntax.
- pimeys 10y agoIs this the same with Crystal, as shown in Ruby: irb(main):001:0> "".methods.size => 170 irb(main):002:0> 0.methods.size => 133 If it is, I mean, I don't see it being so fast.
- yxhuvud 10y agoWhat on earth has the size of the list of methods to do with performance?
- coltonv 10y agoThe number of methods in the standard library really doesn't impact performance in a compiled language since you can tree shake the stuff that isn't used. And even if you don't tree shake having lots of methods isn't really a noticable performance loss in compile to binary languages since you don't need to spin up a VM
- eropple 10y agoIt's not a Ruby. It doesn't even pretend to be a Ruby. I mean, to be a Ruby, this needs to work: a = Object.new list_of_modules.each { |mod| a.extend(mod) } Ruby cannot be separated from its dynamism and to claim it can is misleading.