10 ms·
For anyone thinking Ruby is dying or slow, it's not the reason people like me used it and sticked with it in first place! It's about the experience when you wri
by revskill 4y ago
For anyone thinking Ruby is dying or slow, it's not the reason people like me used it and sticked with it in first place! It's about the experience when you write the code itself. It's natural, like a flow of water, and you're suddenly in Zen mode, where your thought just naturally flow without even you're aware or not.
I first time learn Ruby from zero to "hero" in production confidently is in just under a week. And as far as i know, no other language could bring me such experience.
- setheron 4y agoRuby definitely optimizes for the writer but it fails for the reader (a saying I say quite frequently at work).
- richardlblair 4y agoIt _can_. Much like any other language, if you're not careful you can write some very convoluted Ruby code. What makes Ruby different is when you invest in readability you get far greater returns for much less effort.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- itake 4y agoI've been coding for 10+ years and I would argue that ruby is not kind to the writer. Ruby requires you to be aware of much more "state" than any other language that I have coded in, because all assumptions about methods cannot be confirmed until the code is run. For example, a gem might modify the default_scope of a portion of active record models. You have to memorize all these tweaks and even then you don't know if the code you've written will do what you want until it is actually been run.
- jeltz 4y agoThat is a Rails issue, not a Ruby issue. Outside some Rails libraries this is not a thing. Virtually all non-Rails libraries try hard to avoid modifying global state.
- itake 4y agorspec uses monkey patching for stubbing methods. Even rails libraries avoid modifying global state, but its still very much a thing.
- Thaxll 4y agoThe main issue I have with Ruby / Python is the fact that it's duck typed, it makes the maintenance and refactor pretty hazardous. You get objects you don't know what's in there, 6 month later someone changed it, no compile error but it will break when you run it. And so to overcome those major issues they added really ugly stuff that is not core to the language, linters, annotations etc ...
- itake 4y agoEven in dev, you have to basically code in irb in order to verify everything works.
- jeltz 4y agoNonsense. I used to be a professional Ruby developer and that is nowhere close to the truth. While I prefer static typing it is not hard at all to code in Ruby once you have learned the basics and I almost never used IRB other than when I was a beginner.
- pantulis 4y agoIt's good practice to use irb to quickly check stuff or inspect the programmatic surface of a new library. But that's a Ruby feature that you don't have in other languages! In no way its mandatory to code inside irb. Most of my time was spent in Textmate or Emacs.
- abvdasker 4y agoRuby was probably my "first love" as a programming language for the reasons you described, but nowadays I prefer statically typed compiled languages. Ruby is still my preferred scripting language, though I've seen the way large projects can start to suffer from high maintenance overhead when it comes to dynamic languages like Ruby.
- wilg 4y agoSame. I wish I was always writing Swift.
- theLiminator 4y agoDefinitely, it gets extremely frustrating when you have runtime bugs that would've been trivially caught by a compiler.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- reducesuffering 4y agoPeople often say this but it's nowhere close to universal. Ruby is 24/42 of most loved langs. https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2022/#technology-most-loved-dreaded-and-wanted https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2022/#technology-most-loved-...