3 ms·

What is your thoughts on Crystal?

• rco8786 4y ago
  Looks awesome. Haven’t had an opportunity to work with it yet but plan to. I wish they had considered Ruby interop from inception. I am sure it's a really, really hard problem, but it would have/could have done wonders for Crystal's adoption to be able to tap into the wealth of Ruby's existing ecosystem while layering types directly in the language.
• smoochy 4y ago
  I had written two implementations of the same program in both Ruby in Crystal that need parallel (not threads!) jobs to be run. It did some more or less heavy computation on large data sets. Almost no difference in terms time execution. Crystal is nice, but if Ruby is the same, what's the point? Only thing I don't like about Ruby now is how they implemented types (in separate files... no, thank you). But generally speaking, after 14 years of Ruby... and also trying many more languages - I do know what I want. It's not speed. It's not memory safety. It's not paradigms. It's not static or dynamic typing. It's not the packages and the community. Nope. I want easy code navigation. I only currently know of one language, that hasn't even been fully released yet, that achieves this task to a degree. But even then, it's only 30% there.
  • rco8786 4y ago
    > Crystal is nice, but if Ruby is the same, what's the point? Only thing I don't like about Ruby now is how they implemented types (in separate files... no, thank you). You answered your own question >< > I want easy code navigation. Static types makes this a much, much more solvable problem. But I'm curious about what you mean here, because modern code navigation tools are pretty good - even for Ruby - but perhaps I am not fully understanding what it is that you are after.