4 ms·

I'm surprised people are still making these arguments. Well, that's okay - don't use it then! We'll figure it out on our own. I'm interested on the "maintainab

by phillmv 14y ago

I'm surprised people are still making these arguments. Well, that's okay - don't use it then! We'll figure it out on our own. I'm interested on the "maintainability" claim, though, because that one is new to me. Are there any blog posts that make this claim with some kind of example?

amalag 14y ago
It all depends on the writing style of the app. If someone writes the entire app as learning exercise in metaprogramming, then I am guessing it will be a nightmare to maintain.
lobster_johnson 14y ago
The maintainability criticism is nothing new, or unique to Ruby — it has been something that has been leveled at every dynamically-typed language (eg., Python, Perl) ever since they started to become popular for writing big apps. And it's still untrue. It comes from prejudice and fear about the lack of compile-time checks in dynamic languages. I know this personally, because I remember starting out with Python, and Java and C++ felt very safe — on a visceral level — in comparison, and Python felt very unsafe. I have since learned to recognize these feelings as irrational and unfounded. Any language allows you to shoot yourself in the foot, in different ways. It's just as easy to write an unmaintainable app in C++ as it is in Ruby.
PommeDeTerre 14y ago
The attitude within your first paragraph is an excellent demonstration of the maintainability problems I'm talking about. Programmers five or ten years in the future won't have much say about the software they're being asked or told to maintain. Telling them to just "not use Ruby" won't solve the maintenance issues they're facing while working on some Rails web app developed years earlier. I'm sure you can find numerous blog posts out there describing the maintainability problems with Rails web apps. Google for them. The fact that you're looking for blog articles makes me think that you may have limited experience with large-scale software development projects, especially those spanning many years and development teams. Have you ever worked on large, long-running C++ or Java projects, for instance? If you have, then it should be pretty obvious to you how inadequate the maintainability of Ruby code is. Ruby, and dynamic languages in general, lack much of the functionality that makes code maintainable after many years, or even decades. I really wish you did have this sort of experience, because I think it would make the maintenance issues more more obvious.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- phillmv 14y ago
  I'm asking you to explain why any of it is an issue, and to back it up with the comments of other people. I want to see people who have written "the fact that this project is in Ruby is the bane of my existence and here is why these problems would not have occurred in my language of choice". >lack much of the functionality that makes code maintainable after many years, or even decades. This is just FUD. LOL, what inherent property is this that makes it maintainable? Great trolling, btw.

by phillmv 14y ago

amalag 14y ago

It all depends on the writing style of the app. If someone writes the entire app as learning exercise in metaprogramming, then I am guessing it will be a nightmare to maintain.

lobster_johnson 14y ago

The maintainability criticism is nothing new, or unique to Ruby — it has been something that has been leveled at every dynamically-typed language (eg., Python, Perl) ever since they started to become popular for writing big apps. And it's still untrue. It comes from prejudice and fear about the lack of compile-time checks in dynamic languages. I know this personally, because I remember starting out with Python, and Java and C++ felt very safe — on a visceral level — in comparison, and Python felt very unsafe. I have since learned to recognize these feelings as irrational and unfounded. Any language allows you to shoot yourself in the foot, in different ways. It's just as easy to write an unmaintainable app in C++ as it is in Ruby.

PommeDeTerre 14y ago

The attitude within your first paragraph is an excellent demonstration of the maintainability problems I'm talking about. Programmers five or ten years in the future won't have much say about the software they're being asked or told to maintain. Telling them to just "not use Ruby" won't solve the maintenance issues they're facing while working on some Rails web app developed years earlier. I'm sure you can find numerous blog posts out there describing the maintainability problems with Rails web apps. Google for them. The fact that you're looking for blog articles makes me think that you may have limited experience with large-scale software development projects, especially those spanning many years and development teams. Have you ever worked on large, long-running C++ or Java projects, for instance? If you have, then it should be pretty obvious to you how inadequate the maintainability of Ruby code is. Ruby, and dynamic languages in general, lack much of the functionality that makes code maintainable after many years, or even decades. I really wish you did have this sort of experience, because I think it would make the maintenance issues more more obvious.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
phillmv 14y ago
I'm asking you to explain why any of it is an issue, and to back it up with the comments of other people. I want to see people who have written "the fact that this project is in Ruby is the bane of my existence and here is why these problems would not have occurred in my language of choice". >lack much of the functionality that makes code maintainable after many years, or even decades. This is just FUD. LOL, what inherent property is this that makes it maintainable? Great trolling, btw.