5 ms·

Honestly, I'm part of the mostly-silent majority of polyglot programmers that choose the best language for the job and have grown increasingly weary of Rubyists

by nupark2 14y ago

Honestly, I'm part of the mostly-silent majority of polyglot programmers that choose the best language for the job and have grown increasingly weary of Rubyists wheel invention and focus on rock star programming and rock star rants. It's the only community that I find socially insufferable, and while an unpopular opinion here, I don't relish the notion of Rubyist culture. Culture aside, simply technologically, Ruby has nothing significant to offer as compared to the many existing languages and technology stacks, especially those pushing forward language and runtime research. The only argument for Ruby here seems to be opening the market to developers unwilling to move beyond it.

nupark2 14y ago
Following up to note that: - Despite the opinion clearly being unpopular here, I stand by it: the ruby community is toxic-at-best, and totally technogically uninteresting. Individual Ruby developers may be very nice people, but that doesn't make the technology any more notable or novel, and doesn't change the general tenor of the Ruby community, which seems to be driven by larger than life personalities and a general lack of solid applied computer science.
- sanderjd 14y ago
  Though you seem completely uninterested in anything but repeating your toxic, dogmatic, and insular refrain, I may as well add my voice to the chorus of those who see a different community than the one you do. But I also want to respond to the somewhat more interesting portions of your argument - is ruby "technically interesting", "notable", "novel", and/or lacking in "solid applied computer science", and to what extent do those things matter? I think it is technically interesting because you can do much with little, notable because it combines the elegant OO of Smalltalk and the weak functional programming of Lisp with an intuitive syntax reminiscent of though dissimilar to Python, not at all novel because it prefers to embrace good ideas from its predecessors, and quite thankfully lacking in leakage of hard computer science into mundane programs. It is wrong for many jobs, but right for many others, and for that it is interesting. It is one of a multitude of languages for which the same can be said.
  - billsix 14y ago
    How does it combine the OO of smalltalk and the functional programming of lisp? What was smalltalk lacking that ruby added?
    - davesims 14y ago
      Adoption.
      - sanderjd 14y ago
        No he means specifically with respect to Lispiness, what does Ruby have that Smalltalk doesn't. I thought of a few different answers, and then I found them all in Smalltalk, so I think GP is right, on both the OO and FP front, Ruby is pretty much just Smalltalk.
        lectrick 14y ago
        1) Extremely good developer community/support (gems, the #ruby channel on irc.freenode.net, blogs, books, etc.) Just a shit-ton of smart people. 2) Pure command-line interface that works with text files, that makes it work easily with any toolchain. Seems that GNU Smalltalk is the first version which only recently did not require an IDE. 3) All the basic and most useful objects are literals. Enumerators are stupid-easy to use. 4) Much lower learning curve than Smalltalk. 5) Adopts some useful Perlisms into the language mix. 6) A large focus on unit testing, and TDD. And they are very easy to use.
        sanderjd 14y ago
        I agree with all of that, and that each of those matter, but those things don't make it Lispier than Smalltalk is...
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  > general lack of solid applied computer science Programming is becoming a huge part of everyone's lives. Languages that ease the learning of CS and lower the barriers to entry are very welcome. And some of them also happen to be great business tools.
- petercooper 14y ago
  I thought this rhetorical style sounded familiar. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3844851 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3844851 I don't think many here are arguing that Ruby is particularly interesting technology-wise. Amongst languages, well, it isn't particularly. But the baseless FUD about the "culture" or the "community" is unnecessary.
  - nupark2 14y ago
    A simple Google search would show that issues with unprofessional, sexist, and outright ridiculous behavior in the Ruby community is hardly baseless. Its driven from the top, largely because most mature programmers that would provide a counter to community immaturity have no reason or need to use Ruby.
    - petercooper 14y ago
      Sure, things like that have occurred. They occur in many fields. The Linux kernel mailing lists could make your eyes water at times :-) Things like "the [whatever] community is toxic-at-best" or "I don't relish the notion of [whatever] culture" are opinions that in Ruby's case are based on the behavior of a minority. It's like if people say all C developers are "fat bearded men." Quite a few are, but it's an unhelpful generalization. If the Ruby community had a general atmosphere or a policy of encouraging sexist or unprofessional behavior, I'd let these remarks slide. But it doesn't. The articles and rants that make it to HN are usually the controversial parts because that's more likely to get votes on social voting sites like HN, alas.
      - nupark2 14y ago
        > Sure, things like that have occurred. They occur in many fields. The Linux kernel mailing lists could make your eyes water at times :-) And unsurprisingly, Linux is a terrible overall example of quality kernel development and design. > If the Ruby community had a general atmosphere or a policy of encouraging sexist or unprofessional behavior, I'd let these remarks slide. But it doesn't. Except that the only times I've ever had to deal with (or hear of, third-hand) a general atmosphere of sexist, unprofessional behavior in technology has been in relation to the startup community in general, and the Ruby community in particular.
Turing_Machine 14y ago
You might want to learn the difference between Ruby and Rails. Just an idea.
davesims 14y ago
"polyglot programmers that choose the best language for the job" You just described the majority of Ruby coders I've ever worked with. (mentally scrolls work history roster of Ruby devs...) Yeah, in fact you've just described all of them. I'm sorry your sampling of Ruby coders has been so poor, and I'm sure you could present examples to defend your prejudice. I know the stereotype you're talking about. I haven't worked with one of them, but I know they're out there. Nevertheless, it seems to me you've become the thing you claim to despise: insular and closed off to experiences that would contradict your dogmas.
- nupark2 14y ago
  If that describes said ruby programmers, then why are they using Ruby? > Nevertheless, it seems to me you've become the thing you claim to despise: insular and closed off to experiences that would contradict your dogmas. That would be the opposite of "polyglot". I can find value in Clojure's concurrency design, Python's scientific community, Scala's marriage of OO and functional, F#'s modernization of ML environments, C#'s language design, ObjC's UIKit/AppKit libraries, C's propensity for close-to-the-metal optimization without dropping to assembly, Haskell's lazy evaluation and functional purity, OCaml's mixture of pure functional with mutable state, Erlang's micro-thread actors, Java's virtual machine, Smalltalk's REPL-on-steroids, lua's JIT. However, almost nothing from Ruby. The technology there is almost totally uninteresting -- it's just yet another imperative scripting language with a poorly designed runtime -- and the community, unlike Python's, doesn't make up for it. In fact, that Ruby community is one of the primary things that seems to give technologists a bad name outside the technology industry. When I hear tales of sexist conference behavior, inappropriate language in presentations, and outright bad wheel-reinventing technology, the tales are almost always tied to either Ruby, youthful startups, or both. So -- no, I don't look forward to them joining the rest of us in the iOS space.
  - davesims 14y ago
    You're describing a sub-group of young Valley-centric developers (and the occasional outspoken charismatic CEO), drawn to Rails because of its prominence in the start-up environment. It's simple numbers: since Rails is arguably the most popular for ambitious SV companies, then sure, it's going to reflect that culture to some extent. But the community runs deeper than that, and the "Matz Is Nice So We Are Nice" world still exists and thrives. That's the majority of the Ruby and Rails world I've encountered. Again, I'm sorry your poor sampling seems to have traumatized you into an an irrational, confirmation-bias myopia, but my experience has been very different. You like C#'s language design? Me too. I especially like its adoption of Ruby-ish idioms like lambdas and the LINQ collections DSL, and the C#-on-Rails framework goodness of ASP MVC. "it's just yet another imperative scripting language with a poorly designed runtime" Sweet Lord what an ignorant statement. Here's the thing that Ruby does astonishingly well that none of those others you mentioned can do: metaprogramming. None of the languages can touch Ruby for its ability to consolidate expressive, DSL-like idioms that eliminate code duplication (and therefore bugs), increase communication and application logic clarity. This is where Ruby really eclipses everybody else, in its ability to create frameworks, DSLs and micro-solutions that drive interesting and expressive conventions that drastically reduces the time it takes to code and deliver a feature out the door. This is why frameworks like Rails and Sinatra have been so successful with polyglot programmers like the ones I work with, and why new frameworks like Merb and Padrino keep popping up and offer new idioms and expressive possibilities. It's just a creative, open language to work with, that allows a creativity and level of surprising possibilities that have real business consequences. At the application level, where code conciseness and time-to-delivery are at a premium, Ruby simply shines.
petercooper 14y ago
"have grown increasingly weary of [..] rock star rants" That's funny, because to me it seems you've taken a few of them at their word about what "the Ruby community" is like (or even the existence of a singular one in the first place).

by nupark2 14y ago

nupark2 14y ago

Following up to note that: - Despite the opinion clearly being unpopular here, I stand by it: the ruby community is toxic-at-best, and totally technogically uninteresting. Individual Ruby developers may be very nice people, but that doesn't make the technology any more notable or novel, and doesn't change the general tenor of the Ruby community, which seems to be driven by larger than life personalities and a general lack of solid applied computer science.

sanderjd 14y ago
Though you seem completely uninterested in anything but repeating your toxic, dogmatic, and insular refrain, I may as well add my voice to the chorus of those who see a different community than the one you do. But I also want to respond to the somewhat more interesting portions of your argument - is ruby "technically interesting", "notable", "novel", and/or lacking in "solid applied computer science", and to what extent do those things matter? I think it is technically interesting because you can do much with little, notable because it combines the elegant OO of Smalltalk and the weak functional programming of Lisp with an intuitive syntax reminiscent of though dissimilar to Python, not at all novel because it prefers to embrace good ideas from its predecessors, and quite thankfully lacking in leakage of hard computer science into mundane programs. It is wrong for many jobs, but right for many others, and for that it is interesting. It is one of a multitude of languages for which the same can be said.
- billsix 14y ago
  How does it combine the OO of smalltalk and the functional programming of lisp? What was smalltalk lacking that ruby added?
  - davesims 14y ago
    Adoption.
    - sanderjd 14y ago
      No he means specifically with respect to Lispiness, what does Ruby have that Smalltalk doesn't. I thought of a few different answers, and then I found them all in Smalltalk, so I think GP is right, on both the OO and FP front, Ruby is pretty much just Smalltalk.
      - lectrick 14y ago
        1) Extremely good developer community/support (gems, the #ruby channel on irc.freenode.net, blogs, books, etc.) Just a shit-ton of smart people. 2) Pure command-line interface that works with text files, that makes it work easily with any toolchain. Seems that GNU Smalltalk is the first version which only recently did not require an IDE. 3) All the basic and most useful objects are literals. Enumerators are stupid-easy to use. 4) Much lower learning curve than Smalltalk. 5) Adopts some useful Perlisms into the language mix. 6) A large focus on unit testing, and TDD. And they are very easy to use.
        sanderjd 14y ago
        I agree with all of that, and that each of those matter, but those things don't make it Lispier than Smalltalk is...
ricardobeat 14y ago
> general lack of solid applied computer science Programming is becoming a huge part of everyone's lives. Languages that ease the learning of CS and lower the barriers to entry are very welcome. And some of them also happen to be great business tools.
petercooper 14y ago
I thought this rhetorical style sounded familiar. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3844851 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3844851 I don't think many here are arguing that Ruby is particularly interesting technology-wise. Amongst languages, well, it isn't particularly. But the baseless FUD about the "culture" or the "community" is unnecessary.
- nupark2 14y ago
  A simple Google search would show that issues with unprofessional, sexist, and outright ridiculous behavior in the Ruby community is hardly baseless. Its driven from the top, largely because most mature programmers that would provide a counter to community immaturity have no reason or need to use Ruby.
  - petercooper 14y ago
    Sure, things like that have occurred. They occur in many fields. The Linux kernel mailing lists could make your eyes water at times :-) Things like "the [whatever] community is toxic-at-best" or "I don't relish the notion of [whatever] culture" are opinions that in Ruby's case are based on the behavior of a minority. It's like if people say all C developers are "fat bearded men." Quite a few are, but it's an unhelpful generalization. If the Ruby community had a general atmosphere or a policy of encouraging sexist or unprofessional behavior, I'd let these remarks slide. But it doesn't. The articles and rants that make it to HN are usually the controversial parts because that's more likely to get votes on social voting sites like HN, alas.
    - nupark2 14y ago
      > Sure, things like that have occurred. They occur in many fields. The Linux kernel mailing lists could make your eyes water at times :-) And unsurprisingly, Linux is a terrible overall example of quality kernel development and design. > If the Ruby community had a general atmosphere or a policy of encouraging sexist or unprofessional behavior, I'd let these remarks slide. But it doesn't. Except that the only times I've ever had to deal with (or hear of, third-hand) a general atmosphere of sexist, unprofessional behavior in technology has been in relation to the startup community in general, and the Ruby community in particular.

Turing_Machine 14y ago

You might want to learn the difference between Ruby and Rails. Just an idea.

davesims 14y ago

"polyglot programmers that choose the best language for the job" You just described the majority of Ruby coders I've ever worked with. (mentally scrolls work history roster of Ruby devs...) Yeah, in fact you've just described all of them. I'm sorry your sampling of Ruby coders has been so poor, and I'm sure you could present examples to defend your prejudice. I know the stereotype you're talking about. I haven't worked with one of them, but I know they're out there. Nevertheless, it seems to me you've become the thing you claim to despise: insular and closed off to experiences that would contradict your dogmas.

nupark2 14y ago
If that describes said ruby programmers, then why are they using Ruby? > Nevertheless, it seems to me you've become the thing you claim to despise: insular and closed off to experiences that would contradict your dogmas. That would be the opposite of "polyglot". I can find value in Clojure's concurrency design, Python's scientific community, Scala's marriage of OO and functional, F#'s modernization of ML environments, C#'s language design, ObjC's UIKit/AppKit libraries, C's propensity for close-to-the-metal optimization without dropping to assembly, Haskell's lazy evaluation and functional purity, OCaml's mixture of pure functional with mutable state, Erlang's micro-thread actors, Java's virtual machine, Smalltalk's REPL-on-steroids, lua's JIT. However, almost nothing from Ruby. The technology there is almost totally uninteresting -- it's just yet another imperative scripting language with a poorly designed runtime -- and the community, unlike Python's, doesn't make up for it. In fact, that Ruby community is one of the primary things that seems to give technologists a bad name outside the technology industry. When I hear tales of sexist conference behavior, inappropriate language in presentations, and outright bad wheel-reinventing technology, the tales are almost always tied to either Ruby, youthful startups, or both. So -- no, I don't look forward to them joining the rest of us in the iOS space.
- davesims 14y ago
  You're describing a sub-group of young Valley-centric developers (and the occasional outspoken charismatic CEO), drawn to Rails because of its prominence in the start-up environment. It's simple numbers: since Rails is arguably the most popular for ambitious SV companies, then sure, it's going to reflect that culture to some extent. But the community runs deeper than that, and the "Matz Is Nice So We Are Nice" world still exists and thrives. That's the majority of the Ruby and Rails world I've encountered. Again, I'm sorry your poor sampling seems to have traumatized you into an an irrational, confirmation-bias myopia, but my experience has been very different. You like C#'s language design? Me too. I especially like its adoption of Ruby-ish idioms like lambdas and the LINQ collections DSL, and the C#-on-Rails framework goodness of ASP MVC. "it's just yet another imperative scripting language with a poorly designed runtime" Sweet Lord what an ignorant statement. Here's the thing that Ruby does astonishingly well that none of those others you mentioned can do: metaprogramming. None of the languages can touch Ruby for its ability to consolidate expressive, DSL-like idioms that eliminate code duplication (and therefore bugs), increase communication and application logic clarity. This is where Ruby really eclipses everybody else, in its ability to create frameworks, DSLs and micro-solutions that drive interesting and expressive conventions that drastically reduces the time it takes to code and deliver a feature out the door. This is why frameworks like Rails and Sinatra have been so successful with polyglot programmers like the ones I work with, and why new frameworks like Merb and Padrino keep popping up and offer new idioms and expressive possibilities. It's just a creative, open language to work with, that allows a creativity and level of surprising possibilities that have real business consequences. At the application level, where code conciseness and time-to-delivery are at a premium, Ruby simply shines.

petercooper 14y ago

"have grown increasingly weary of [..] rock star rants" That's funny, because to me it seems you've taken a few of them at their word about what "the Ruby community" is like (or even the existence of a singular one in the first place).