4 ms·

> It's a shame that most people only write Ruby in the context of Rails I fully agree with this! I used to use Rails for a few years (not professionally, FWIW)

> It's a shame that most people only write Ruby in the context of Rails I fully agree with this! I used to use Rails for a few years (not professionally, FWIW), but didn't enjoy Rails that much. Even though, it's hands down the best "in class" framework, it beats anything in the JS or Python ecosystems (and claiming Django is anything close to Rails is just offensive to Rails). But anyway, I've yet to find something that's as good as Ruby for daily scripts or task automation. Ruby is one of those few languages you can just read (I can't explain it well), and coming back to old Ruby code, the "wtf is going on here" moments are fairly scarce (sans code that touches metaprogramming/eigenclasses/DSLs, but even then it's more straightforward than in other languages). Lately I tend to just use Fish for most things (which are simple), but still reach for Ruby when the task is a bit more involved. Like, yeah there's Python, but I never liked Python. That's not to say Ruby isn't without any warts, but that's just... Technology, I guess lol.

drewbug01 4y ago
I don’t have some kind of grand, unified theory about this - but the people I know who genuinely enjoy Ruby on its merits seem to think about code differently. Not different-as-in-bad, but just… different. I too find it hard to explain. > Ruby is one of those few languages you can just read I think this has something to do with it, though. The stdlib has a lot of different ways to “say” the same thing (TIMTOWTDI, anyone?) and used well it can be quite legible. But some programmers I know find that really frustrating. Maybe it has something to do with how one visually processes and reads code? How one might associate semantic meaning to things? I don’t know how, but it feels like there’s something interesting there to study.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  Yeah, there's a reason that _why the luck stiff was a Ruby person. Writing Ruby is (or can be) a more creative endeavor. Some people really dislike the inability to recommend or see one unambiguous path to follow. These people are generally happier with Python.
ryantgtg 4y ago
I agree. I’m not a professional developer, but I sometimes make bots/daily scripts, as well as scripts for work that are beyond Excel, and I always use ruby. My colleagues use python for similar work scripts, but to me they are painfully difficult to read and understand.

drewbug01 4y ago

I don’t have some kind of grand, unified theory about this - but the people I know who genuinely enjoy Ruby on its merits seem to think about code differently. Not different-as-in-bad, but just… different. I too find it hard to explain. > Ruby is one of those few languages you can just read I think this has something to do with it, though. The stdlib has a lot of different ways to “say” the same thing (TIMTOWTDI, anyone?) and used well it can be quite legible. But some programmers I know find that really frustrating. Maybe it has something to do with how one visually processes and reads code? How one might associate semantic meaning to things? I don’t know how, but it feels like there’s something interesting there to study.

KerrAvon 4y ago
Yeah, there's a reason that _why the luck stiff was a Ruby person. Writing Ruby is (or can be) a more creative endeavor. Some people really dislike the inability to recommend or see one unambiguous path to follow. These people are generally happier with Python.

ryantgtg 4y ago

I agree. I’m not a professional developer, but I sometimes make bots/daily scripts, as well as scripts for work that are beyond Excel, and I always use ruby. My colleagues use python for similar work scripts, but to me they are painfully difficult to read and understand.