3 ms·

[insert my own personal bitching about the pains of procedural configuration management using Ruby at scale and the lost causes of rubocop and rbs] a. Yes, glo

[insert my own personal bitching about the pains of procedural configuration management using Ruby at scale and the lost causes of rubocop and rbs] a. Yes, global mutable state is anti-functional style, side-effect-oriented, god function/object programming and it sucks. b. The lack of an ability to seal objects, classes, and modules from further modification is a problem. c. Ruby 3 should've broken compatibility by adding gradual typing. d. Nonorthogonality - Too many ways to do the same thing. e. Dying community - Too much broken code out there. f. Ruby was "Perl5 2.0" in most senses. For type-safer things that look like Ruby, Crystal is an almost viable, interesting alternative. Otherwise, I have evolved past Ruby because of the learning curve for others, too many people hate it, too many maintainers have attitude/professionalism problems, and there are more supportable alternatives for most use-cases such as rust, elixir, and bash. Sometimes, it's still useful to use ruby for some quick text formatting or a quick CLI utility in the space of awk, perl, or sed. The world mostly uses js and python. One can either be a hipster with obscure tools or get things done with the lowest TCO/highest ROI.

vidarh 3y ago
> b. The lack of an ability to seal objects, classes, and modules from further modification is a problem. "freeze" has been there from the very start". You can freeze objects, or individual classes and modules (because, hey, they're objects) just fine. I'm all for freezing more stuff, and the migration towards freezing string literals was good, and you can freeze very aggressively in your own code, including system classes. > c. Ruby 3 should've broken compatibility by adding gradual typing. If they had, it would've split the community. Some of us would've forked it. Any degree of gradual typing in Ruby will need to be extremely cautiously approached and/or mostly optional, as it strikes at the heart of what makes Ruby what it is. There are places it would work and be fine, and there are places where it would massively hamper productivity. > For type-safer things that look like Ruby, Crystal is an almost viable, interesting alternative. Crystal has a fraction of the community and too many pointless differences to Ruby for many of us to consider. > The world mostly uses js and python. One can either be a hipster with obscure tools or get things done with the lowest TCO/highest ROI. Funny. My career has spanned multiple "the world mostly uses $language" phases, and it's never affected my TCO/ROI whether what I've happened to use matches the current $language. What has mattered is picking a language the right libraries are available for and that I'm comfortable in. Sometimes I only get one of those, and sometimes that means picking a different language the Ruby, but writing composable tools means it's quite rare, and each time makes it rarer.
fomine3 3y ago
Ruby for big webapp is overrated. Ruby for perl/awk/sed/sh/DSL replacement is quite underrated.

vidarh 3y ago

> b. The lack of an ability to seal objects, classes, and modules from further modification is a problem. "freeze" has been there from the very start". You can freeze objects, or individual classes and modules (because, hey, they're objects) just fine. I'm all for freezing more stuff, and the migration towards freezing string literals was good, and you can freeze very aggressively in your own code, including system classes. > c. Ruby 3 should've broken compatibility by adding gradual typing. If they had, it would've split the community. Some of us would've forked it. Any degree of gradual typing in Ruby will need to be extremely cautiously approached and/or mostly optional, as it strikes at the heart of what makes Ruby what it is. There are places it would work and be fine, and there are places where it would massively hamper productivity. > For type-safer things that look like Ruby, Crystal is an almost viable, interesting alternative. Crystal has a fraction of the community and too many pointless differences to Ruby for many of us to consider. > The world mostly uses js and python. One can either be a hipster with obscure tools or get things done with the lowest TCO/highest ROI. Funny. My career has spanned multiple "the world mostly uses $language" phases, and it's never affected my TCO/ROI whether what I've happened to use matches the current $language. What has mattered is picking a language the right libraries are available for and that I'm comfortable in. Sometimes I only get one of those, and sometimes that means picking a different language the Ruby, but writing composable tools means it's quite rare, and each time makes it rarer.

fomine3 3y ago

Ruby for big webapp is overrated. Ruby for perl/awk/sed/sh/DSL replacement is quite underrated.