3 ms·
Mentioning 1.9 migration and ruby being slow? Python 2 to 3 was waaaaay worse and more negatively impactful, and equally slow (slower in most cases). Ruby neve
by chucke 2y ago
Mentioning 1.9 migration and ruby being slow? Python 2 to 3 was waaaaay worse and more negatively impactful, and equally slow (slower in most cases).
Ruby never had US market penetrative as perl or python, which were basically invented in the US, and congregated people from the academic realm. These things aren't decided based on meritocracy (no things ever are).
- dragonwriter 2y ago> Mentioning 1.9 migration and ruby being slow? Python 2 to 3 was waaaaay worse and more negatively impactful Python 2-to-3 was mainly worse than Ruby 1.8 to 1.9 because Python had already won, and had a much bigger and more diverse ecosystem.
- chucke 2y agoThat's disingenuous. Python 3 was released around 2008, rails popularity was still rising. The community refused to upgrade for at least 10y, and several prominent libraries took as much to provide first grade python 3 support. Ruby 1.8 to 1.9 migration was by contrast way milder. It took 6 or 7 patch releases and around five years to release 1.9.3, the first from the 1.9 series people actually considered stable, but after that the community migrated because it was *significantly* faster than 1.8 . Python 3 on the other hand was slower overall than python 3 at least until 3.6. The fact that the community stuck with python through it all does say a lot about human psychology and sunken cost syndrome.
- solidsnack9000 2y agoCompare Ruby to shell, not Python, when considering what I wrote above.