4 ms·

> LOCs of Ruby changed or added in 2011 were [...] a fifth of what they were in 2008 I guess he means this peak in 2008 (though it's not 1/5 by averges) http:

by 6ren 14y ago

> LOCs of Ruby changed or added in 2011 were [...] a fifth of what they were in 2008 I guess he means this peak in 2008 (though it's not 1/5 by averges) http://www.ohloh.net/languages/compare?commit=Update&l0=ruby&l1=-1&l2=-1&l3=-1&l4=-1&measure=loc_changed&percent=true http://www.ohloh.net/languages/compare?commit=Update&l0=... ruby-rant: I've been playing with ruby recently, and was amazed to find my working toy code broken by each upgrade of ruby (even point upgrade 1.9.2 to 1.9.3). It's a different world/philosophy from java's back-compatibility. I was so surprised I wasn't even angry, just shook my head, wow. I wanted to try heroku, and the number of layers needing to be installed was also amazing (e.g. heroku's apt-get record doesn't state it needs ruby... ubuntu's repository now doesn't include ruby1.9.1... so I installed rvm (and another round of dependencies and documentation), and found an old gem (undocumented on heroku.com) that would install it). I hit roadblocks several times in this; so it took several days, and several hours on each. So... you've got upgrades/dependency management in apt-get, gems, rvm and heroku - and breaking changes in ruby itself. I recall reading that getting started in ruby had become complex and difficult for beginners, serving its present professional user needs, and very different from the experience that got them started. Finally... it's a thrilling feeling to reduce 10 lines of Java into 1 line of ruby; but I have a doubt about whether that one short line really is clearer. I'm not saying that it isn't clearer, just that I'll only really know when I come back to it in a few months time and try to understand it. They have identical conceptual complexity; it's just syntax. Don't get me wrong - I really enjoyed making it shorter, I'm just not (yet) sure it's actually better.

freditup 14y ago
I do think the ruby (coupled with rails) toolchain can be a tad overwhelming at first to install and get used to. I haven't used Ruby a lot, but I do like most of the language. I have a few issues with how some things are named, but whatever. I also miss the great code completion you can get with a language like C#/Java. Out of curiosity, what broke between 1.9.2 and 1.9.3 for you? Edit: Just noticed the article is three 5 months old. Guess it doesn't really make a difference when talking about 2011 though.
- 6ren 14y ago
  The current directory was removed from the LOAD_PATH, so you have to change "require 'mycode'" to "require './mycode'", or use require-relative, or add "." to LOAD_PATH yourself. It was changed for security issues apparently. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2900370/why-does-ruby-1-9-2-remove-from-load-path-and-whats-the-alternative http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2900370/why-does-ruby-1-9...
tferris 14y ago
I agree, Ruby is slowly going the downward spiral, why: - RoR introduced groundbreaking concepts 7 years ago: strict MVC, a great ORM, migrations, generators and conventions over configuration and all features weren't optional, users were forced to user them. At that time it was good, because web programming was not structured and between a too formal Java and a loose PHP weren't many choices. Rails' success was also Ruby's success. - Nowadays all the concepts RoR brought all learned and adapted by other languages' frameworks, often even better and more modularized. So, RoR is not the only choice anymore. - The landscape has changed, RoR and Ruby are facing strong competition: Node.js/Express, Python/Django, Clojure, Scala, and PHP matured with many frameworks - The configuration hassle with Ruby and Rails you described is daily routine which is time consuming even for advanced Rubiest and the entry barrier for beginners. And it won't get better because the core team changes Ruby and Rails with a pace never seen before and breaking code steadily. This development is agressive and pushing RoR in one direction leaving no other options (SCSS? CoffeeScript?). - Ruby itself as a language is controversial—there are definitely nice properties but it still comes with drawbacks: it's slow, it still changes too often, the syntax is too dense (writing is quick but comprehension and readability is hard), no concurrency or cluster model, ecosystem exists only for Rails; but still it could established itself with Rails and in few other areas. => Demand for Ruby and RoR will stay high due to many legacy systems and many Rubiest who still earn high day rates and won't leave due to high opportunity costs if they learned new languages. But newcomers will choose less and less Ruby.

by 6ren 14y ago

freditup 14y ago

I do think the ruby (coupled with rails) toolchain can be a tad overwhelming at first to install and get used to. I haven't used Ruby a lot, but I do like most of the language. I have a few issues with how some things are named, but whatever. I also miss the great code completion you can get with a language like C#/Java. Out of curiosity, what broke between 1.9.2 and 1.9.3 for you? Edit: Just noticed the article is three 5 months old. Guess it doesn't really make a difference when talking about 2011 though.

6ren 14y ago
The current directory was removed from the LOAD_PATH, so you have to change "require 'mycode'" to "require './mycode'", or use require-relative, or add "." to LOAD_PATH yourself. It was changed for security issues apparently. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2900370/why-does-ruby-1-9-2-remove-from-load-path-and-whats-the-alternative http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2900370/why-does-ruby-1-9...

tferris 14y ago

I agree, Ruby is slowly going the downward spiral, why: - RoR introduced groundbreaking concepts 7 years ago: strict MVC, a great ORM, migrations, generators and conventions over configuration and all features weren't optional, users were forced to user them. At that time it was good, because web programming was not structured and between a too formal Java and a loose PHP weren't many choices. Rails' success was also Ruby's success. - Nowadays all the concepts RoR brought all learned and adapted by other languages' frameworks, often even better and more modularized. So, RoR is not the only choice anymore. - The landscape has changed, RoR and Ruby are facing strong competition: Node.js/Express, Python/Django, Clojure, Scala, and PHP matured with many frameworks - The configuration hassle with Ruby and Rails you described is daily routine which is time consuming even for advanced Rubiest and the entry barrier for beginners. And it won't get better because the core team changes Ruby and Rails with a pace never seen before and breaking code steadily. This development is agressive and pushing RoR in one direction leaving no other options (SCSS? CoffeeScript?). - Ruby itself as a language is controversial—there are definitely nice properties but it still comes with drawbacks: it's slow, it still changes too often, the syntax is too dense (writing is quick but comprehension and readability is hard), no concurrency or cluster model, ecosystem exists only for Rails; but still it could established itself with Rails and in few other areas. => Demand for Ruby and RoR will stay high due to many legacy systems and many Rubiest who still earn high day rates and won't leave due to high opportunity costs if they learned new languages. But newcomers will choose less and less Ruby.