4 ms·

I really like Ruby, I do sort of wish it could focus on it's own identity a bit. Some new features feel almost prescribed from other languages? Like, RBS and N

I really like Ruby, I do sort of wish it could focus on it's own identity a bit. Some new features feel almost prescribed from other languages? Like, RBS and Namespaces specifically... they don't really fit the model of Ruby exactly, but they need to be there so Ruby can be presented as "having" type-safety and a-solution-for-monkey-patching. I'm all for taking inspiration from other places, but Ruby wasn't quite built around the same axioms that other programming languages started from.

rco8786 1y ago
Yea generally agree with this take. Feels like we’re getting features shoehorned in.
viraptor 1y ago
Almost every recent (in years) Ruby feature is not a novel idea. Even the origin was a Perl/Smalltalk/Lisp crossover so the axioms were pretty well known.
princevegeta89 1y ago
I used Ruby a lot a long time ago and built medium to large scale enterprise apps on the Rails framework before I moved on to other projects involving Golang and Elixir. Somehow I had more fun and more safety working with Elixir, which was only just getting started as a brand new language trying to establish itself. It was only after working with Go that I realized how much compile-time safety and performance I was missing out on with Ruby.There's no doubt I would use Ruby today again, but I can't imagine going further beyond simple scripts and workflows. I have recently tried building a very small website with Rails, and I was somewhat surprised the framework did not mature all that much, and type safety and IDE support still seem to be iffy. There is so much unwanted magic that I still see with Ruby on Rails in general. I was looking up to Crystal to address some of the issues I described above, but unfortunately it just remained as a less mature language. Elixir was great, but with the experience I have had, I will actually drop heading into the functional programming world. That leaves me with only one choice, which is Golang. I am not a fan of everything it has, but it is fairly easy for my fellow engineers to pick up, and the IDE support has been nothing short of fantastic. This is really really a big stretch, but I have always been hopeful towards looking for a TypeScript sort of compile-time layer for Ruby. It may probably never happen though, sadly.
- jweir 1y ago
  Sorbet helps. We’ve even created a typed HTML template engine and it helps catch a lot but also allows using the Sorbet LSP to rename things and of course correct autocomplete.
- debugnik 1y ago
  > but with the experience I have had, I will actually drop heading into the functional programming world Could you elaborate on this? It's a valid resolution, but I consider Elixir to be on the pragmatic side of the functional paradigm, so I'm wondering what pushed you away.
  - princevegeta89 1y ago
    Sure, this was a few years ago. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but all the other existing and new engineers on my team have expressed a lot of concern about the entire paradigm shift and that Elixir was unnecessarily complicating things in terms of implementing simple logic. A lot of junior engineers also have been unhappy with the kind of shift going away from the traditional procedural/oop styles. If I was working on a solo project, I would pick Elixir over Rails any day. The LSP server and tooling alone makes it stand up very strong.
- brigandish 1y ago
  > I was looking up to Crystal to address some of the issues I described above, but unfortunately it just remained as a less mature language. I'd be interested to hear what you find lacking in Crystal, too. For me it would be editor support, last time I tried the LSP I couldn't get it to work.
  - princevegeta89 1y ago
    Last time I checked I heard the compile times were still awful. And the entire community lacking some basic packages and enough developers that it still made it hard to find support or help for issues one may encounter.

rco8786 1y ago

Yea generally agree with this take. Feels like we’re getting features shoehorned in.

viraptor 1y ago

Almost every recent (in years) Ruby feature is not a novel idea. Even the origin was a Perl/Smalltalk/Lisp crossover so the axioms were pretty well known.

princevegeta89 1y ago

I used Ruby a lot a long time ago and built medium to large scale enterprise apps on the Rails framework before I moved on to other projects involving Golang and Elixir. Somehow I had more fun and more safety working with Elixir, which was only just getting started as a brand new language trying to establish itself. It was only after working with Go that I realized how much compile-time safety and performance I was missing out on with Ruby.There's no doubt I would use Ruby today again, but I can't imagine going further beyond simple scripts and workflows. I have recently tried building a very small website with Rails, and I was somewhat surprised the framework did not mature all that much, and type safety and IDE support still seem to be iffy. There is so much unwanted magic that I still see with Ruby on Rails in general. I was looking up to Crystal to address some of the issues I described above, but unfortunately it just remained as a less mature language. Elixir was great, but with the experience I have had, I will actually drop heading into the functional programming world. That leaves me with only one choice, which is Golang. I am not a fan of everything it has, but it is fairly easy for my fellow engineers to pick up, and the IDE support has been nothing short of fantastic. This is really really a big stretch, but I have always been hopeful towards looking for a TypeScript sort of compile-time layer for Ruby. It may probably never happen though, sadly.

jweir 1y ago
Sorbet helps. We’ve even created a typed HTML template engine and it helps catch a lot but also allows using the Sorbet LSP to rename things and of course correct autocomplete.
debugnik 1y ago
> but with the experience I have had, I will actually drop heading into the functional programming world Could you elaborate on this? It's a valid resolution, but I consider Elixir to be on the pragmatic side of the functional paradigm, so I'm wondering what pushed you away.
- princevegeta89 1y ago
  Sure, this was a few years ago. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but all the other existing and new engineers on my team have expressed a lot of concern about the entire paradigm shift and that Elixir was unnecessarily complicating things in terms of implementing simple logic. A lot of junior engineers also have been unhappy with the kind of shift going away from the traditional procedural/oop styles. If I was working on a solo project, I would pick Elixir over Rails any day. The LSP server and tooling alone makes it stand up very strong.
brigandish 1y ago
> I was looking up to Crystal to address some of the issues I described above, but unfortunately it just remained as a less mature language. I'd be interested to hear what you find lacking in Crystal, too. For me it would be editor support, last time I tried the LSP I couldn't get it to work.
- princevegeta89 1y ago
  Last time I checked I heard the compile times were still awful. And the entire community lacking some basic packages and enough developers that it still made it hard to find support or help for issues one may encounter.