4 ms·

I'm pretty sure that Ruby was out 10 years before Rails.

by ahuth 13y ago

sanderjd 13y ago
Totally - the more interesting question is how much Rails has driven all the improvements (mostly to performance, but also to the standard library and packaging) since roundabout version 1.8.
- rubiquity 13y ago
  I think ruby-core has had a big focus on keeping Rails needs in mind but not letting Rails drive the building of the language.
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  Do you have any examples of this?
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    Some "examples" (they are really just weak speculation) for how I think Rails may have contributed to the three specific areas I mentioned: - Packaging: This is probably where I think Rails contributed most - both rubygems.org and Bundler were created to make it easier to manage the creation and use of lots of large numbers of dependencies, which Rails projects tend to have. Also rvm and its descendants were created to handle Rails app deployments, and are especially useful for situations where you're switching between lots of projects with different ruby version and library dependencies, which is typical in Rails client work. - Standard library: The `Object#tap` method came from ActiveSupport. Also, ActiveSupport had an OrderedHash, and now all hashes are ordered. I think there are some other examples of that sort of thing. - Performance: I really don't know what has driven performance improvements have been made, but it doesn't seem outlandish to think that backlash against poor CPU and (especially) memory usage characteristics of Rails applications was a contributor.
    - jamesbritt 13y ago
      I think you're taking a very Railscentrc view of Ruby. rubygems the tool existed before Rails, as did multiple gem hosting mirrors. I believe rubygems.org sprang up because rubyforge.org was falling out of favor. And Bundler is not part of Ruby. It's possible Wayne Seguin created rvm due Rails but I never got that impression from his talks (but it's been some time). Pretty sure MenTaLguY created "tap"; Rails had "returning" (though they are similar and perhaps the usage in Rails made it popular enough to warrant inclusion in core). http://moonbase.rydia.net/mental/blog/programming/eavesdropping-on-expressions http://moonbase.rydia.net/mental/blog/programming/eavesdropp... Certainly if any library gets a lot of use then that will influence aspects of the base language, but matz and ko1 seem pretty deliberate about what gets added.
      - sanderjd 13y ago
        Heh, I just thought it was an interesting question to speculate about - I really have no idea to what extent Rails has driven Ruby recently. You're probably right about `.tap`, and I can't think of any other standard library stuff, so my speculation there is seeming pretty weak. I didn't suggest that Rails invented rubygems and gem hosts, I suggested that rubygems.org and bundler were major improvements to the ruby packaging ecosystem that were driven by Rails. I'm not sure you actually disagreed with that point...
        jamesbritt 13y ago
        I suggested that rubygems.org and bundler were major improvements to the ruby packaging ecosystem that were driven by Rails. I'm not sure you actually disagreed with that point... Rubygems.org was not driven by Rails. It doesn't offer much beyond what rubyforge was doing. Less, actually. RF was for code hosting, docs, and gem serving. Once people started moving to github RF lost favor. When Github decided to stop serving gems rubygems.org came about to fill the gap. It lists and serves gesm; code and docs live elsewhere. Bundler, sure, came form the Rails community to apparently solve a problem for that community. It's not for everyone, though. I don't use it (doesn't make life any better for me), but then I don't use Rails either. There's lots that goes in Ruby that has nothing to do with Rails and the conflation of Rails and Ruby is a detriment to different Ruby communities out there.
- ahuth 13y ago
  True. I hadn't thought of that, but it would be interesting to know.

I'm pretty sure that Ruby was out 10 years before Rails.

by ahuth 13y ago

I'm pretty sure that Ruby was out 10 years before Rails.

Totally - the more interesting question is how much Rails has driven all the improvements (mostly to performance, but also to the standard library and packaging) since roundabout version 1.8.

rubiquity 13y ago
I think ruby-core has had a big focus on keeping Rails needs in mind but not letting Rails drive the building of the language.
jamesbritt 13y ago
Do you have any examples of this?
- sanderjd 13y ago
  Some "examples" (they are really just weak speculation) for how I think Rails may have contributed to the three specific areas I mentioned: - Packaging: This is probably where I think Rails contributed most - both rubygems.org and Bundler were created to make it easier to manage the creation and use of lots of large numbers of dependencies, which Rails projects tend to have. Also rvm and its descendants were created to handle Rails app deployments, and are especially useful for situations where you're switching between lots of projects with different ruby version and library dependencies, which is typical in Rails client work. - Standard library: The `Object#tap` method came from ActiveSupport. Also, ActiveSupport had an OrderedHash, and now all hashes are ordered. I think there are some other examples of that sort of thing. - Performance: I really don't know what has driven performance improvements have been made, but it doesn't seem outlandish to think that backlash against poor CPU and (especially) memory usage characteristics of Rails applications was a contributor.
  - jamesbritt 13y ago
    I think you're taking a very Railscentrc view of Ruby. rubygems the tool existed before Rails, as did multiple gem hosting mirrors. I believe rubygems.org sprang up because rubyforge.org was falling out of favor. And Bundler is not part of Ruby. It's possible Wayne Seguin created rvm due Rails but I never got that impression from his talks (but it's been some time). Pretty sure MenTaLguY created "tap"; Rails had "returning" (though they are similar and perhaps the usage in Rails made it popular enough to warrant inclusion in core). http://moonbase.rydia.net/mental/blog/programming/eavesdropping-on-expressions http://moonbase.rydia.net/mental/blog/programming/eavesdropp... Certainly if any library gets a lot of use then that will influence aspects of the base language, but matz and ko1 seem pretty deliberate about what gets added.
    - sanderjd 13y ago
      Heh, I just thought it was an interesting question to speculate about - I really have no idea to what extent Rails has driven Ruby recently. You're probably right about `.tap`, and I can't think of any other standard library stuff, so my speculation there is seeming pretty weak. I didn't suggest that Rails invented rubygems and gem hosts, I suggested that rubygems.org and bundler were major improvements to the ruby packaging ecosystem that were driven by Rails. I'm not sure you actually disagreed with that point...
      - jamesbritt 13y ago
        I suggested that rubygems.org and bundler were major improvements to the ruby packaging ecosystem that were driven by Rails. I'm not sure you actually disagreed with that point... Rubygems.org was not driven by Rails. It doesn't offer much beyond what rubyforge was doing. Less, actually. RF was for code hosting, docs, and gem serving. Once people started moving to github RF lost favor. When Github decided to stop serving gems rubygems.org came about to fill the gap. It lists and serves gesm; code and docs live elsewhere. Bundler, sure, came form the Rails community to apparently solve a problem for that community. It's not for everyone, though. I don't use it (doesn't make life any better for me), but then I don't use Rails either. There's lots that goes in Ruby that has nothing to do with Rails and the conflation of Rails and Ruby is a detriment to different Ruby communities out there.
ahuth 13y ago
True. I hadn't thought of that, but it would be interesting to know.