Even if I knew nothing about Java and Ruby (which is not true) have you noticed that you have managed to assert these three things? -> "we were writing web

Even if I knew nothing about Java and Ruby (which is not true) have you noticed that you have managed to assert these three things? -> "we were writing web apps in Java. Ruby allowed us to write those same apps with fewer lines of code" "So our code grows and grows, until it reaches a kind of equilibrium with how many lines of code a company can support." "One million lines of Java is easier to understand than one million lines of Ruby. Doubly so when you have better Java tooling than Ruby tooling" This suggests to me that if, line for line, Ruby is more difficult to understand then the codebase will not reach the size of the Java codebase. But though smaller, the codebase does more. So is it a wash? Maybe. Nobody would deny that it is harder to build tooling for a dynamically typed language versus a statically typed massacre. But Java has been around longer, it also has/had huge enterprise backing with tens[1] of implementations versus, what, a handful for Ruby[2]? I think it is fairer to compare tooling in the ecosystems of Ruby and Python and Perl and so on before using the word "terrible". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_%28programming_language%29#Implementations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_%28programming_language%2...