Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ruby 3.2.0 is from another dimension

tomaszs2.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 341 posts

Re: Ruby 3.2.0 is from another dimension

#61

Post by samwillis »

xigoi wrote: post #52
samwillis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are obviously referring to Python and so I would like to note a few things. (I have nothing against Ruby) > Ruby ... its combined attributes of brevity, expressive power, and feature consistency. > [Python] lacks the elegance and consistency First I would argue Python is very consistent in its design, it aims to only have one obvious way to do things and so it's easy to guess how apis will work. It also aims for…

One aspect in which Ruby is much more consistent than Python: sorted(arr) arr.sort() versus arr.sort arr.sort!

Personally I think the Python syntax make its more explicit which is an in-place sort vs returning a sorted copy. And also what's a method call vs an attribute access.

Someone new to Ruby will be WTF is the ! for?

Re: Ruby 3.2.0 is from another dimension

#62

Post by aidos »

MartinMond wrote: post #31
samwillis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are obviously referring to Python and so I would like to note a few things. (I have nothing against Ruby) > Ruby ... its combined attributes of brevity, expressive power, and feature consistency. > [Python] lacks the elegance and consistency First I would argue Python is very consistent in its design, it aims to only have one obvious way to do things and so it's easy to guess how apis will work. It also aims for…

When I looked at Python vs Ruby many years ago, I found the opposite: Why does Python have (special) functions like len() and map(), instead of 'properly' supporting both OOP (len should just be a method on objects) and/or FP (support multi-line lambdas so I can actually use map/filter etc). I never understood how this can be considered consistent at all, and those IMHO language design warts made me look into Ruby at…

Those functions take any object that supports the iteration protocol. There’s no need for adding say, len, to every object that needs a len function. I’d argue that is consistent.

Sure, multi line lambdas might be nice, but equally you can define functions wherever you need them so it’s not really all that different.

Re: Ruby 3.2.0 is from another dimension

#63

Post by samwillis »

MartinMond wrote: post #31
samwillis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are obviously referring to Python and so I would like to note a few things. (I have nothing against Ruby) > Ruby ... its combined attributes of brevity, expressive power, and feature consistency. > [Python] lacks the elegance and consistency First I would argue Python is very consistent in its design, it aims to only have one obvious way to do things and so it's easy to guess how apis will work. It also aims for…

When I looked at Python vs Ruby many years ago, I found the opposite: Why does Python have (special) functions like len() and map(), instead of 'properly' supporting both OOP (len should just be a method on objects) and/or FP (support multi-line lambdas so I can actually use map/filter etc). I never understood how this can be considered consistent at all, and those IMHO language design warts made me look into Ruby at…

Map/filter are considered inferior in Python to list comprehensions.

  res = [x**2 for x in range(10) if x != 5]

Re: Ruby 3.2.0 is from another dimension

#64

Post by pelasaco »

dragonwriter wrote: post #28
pelasaco wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the "too slow argument" is normally based on old internet opinions and benchmarks.. ruby today is pretty fast. In the company that I work, we do a lot of system programming using ruby, web development, etc.. It came to substitute perl around 2005, and we still using it successfully today. When we need something really, really fast, specially including parallel processing and etc, we just use jruby.

> ruby today is pretty fast Ruby today is slow as hell, but not as much as slower than other slow as hell languages as Ruby used to be.

did you benchmark Jruby or TruffleRuby? Did you compile c-ruby with jemalloc? Normally the "ruby is slow" argument, is based on not being involved with ruby and solving real problems with it. Some people will just LOL this argument even harder if you add development time and code maintenance costs on that equation.

Re: Ruby 3.2.0 is from another dimension

#65

Post by xigoi »

samwillis wrote: post #61
xigoi wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One aspect in which Ruby is much more consistent than Python: sorted(arr) arr.sort() versus arr.sort arr.sort!

Personally I think the Python syntax make its more explicit which is an in-place sort vs returning a sorted copy. And also what's a method call vs an attribute access. Someone new to Ruby will be WTF is the ! for?

How does having a function instead of a method indicate that it's out-of-place?

Every Ruby tutorial explains that an exclamation mark means in-place, and this convention is consistent across Ruby libraries, unlike Python.

Re: Ruby 3.2.0 is from another dimension

#66

Post by Shorel »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #15
michaelteter wrote: post #14

Ruby is my favorite language, and often it is a joy to use because of its combined attributes of brevity, expressive power, and feature consistency. It's disappointing that there are so many more jobs for another popular language - one that lacks the elegance and consistency but which has a larger ecosystem. As far as I know, the only well known reason for a company to choose Ruby is if they want Rails (and obviously…

> the other comparatively-unpleasant language > one that lacks the elegance and consistency upvoted for perfectly concise description of that language. it is even more sad knowing that high quality alternatives for the most popular libraries exist, but inertia is simply too high. @work I've tried to introduce Ruby to my colleagues that are very bad at programming, but good at science. They ditched it with reasons lik…

I think Dlang is better than the other languages mentioned in this thread, but I know almost no one uses it.

It is what it is.

Re: Ruby 3.2.0 is from another dimension

#68

Post by Alifatisk »

revskill wrote: post #32
samwillis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are obviously referring to Python and so I would like to note a few things. (I have nothing against Ruby) > Ruby ... its combined attributes of brevity, expressive power, and feature consistency. > [Python] lacks the elegance and consistency First I would argue Python is very consistent in its design, it aims to only have one obvious way to do things and so it's easy to guess how apis will work. It also aims for…

I think the elegance here is "lacking" of parenthese in function call. Also block. Ruby code has no parenthese.

Ruby has paranthese, but it’s optional

Re: Ruby 3.2.0 is from another dimension

#69

Post by masklinn »

arnvald wrote: post #46
samwillis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are obviously referring to Python and so I would like to note a few things. (I have nothing against Ruby) > Ruby ... its combined attributes of brevity, expressive power, and feature consistency. > [Python] lacks the elegance and consistency First I would argue Python is very consistent in its design, it aims to only have one obvious way to do things and so it's easy to guess how apis will work. It also aims for…

I explored this topic a while ago on my blog [0] In essence, I don't think it has anything to do with elegance, syntax, or "easiness". It's more about timing + origin + corporate adoption: * Python was created in Europe, Ruby was created in Japan - when Ruby gained more recognition in English-speaking world (~2004), Python has already been present and used worldwide for a decade * Ruby was created as a personal, hobb…

Note that the Python core team started working with the scientific community very early on, the first scientific packages (as well as additions to python for scicom like extended slices) date back to the mid 90s.

GvR’s background probably helped spread the word and thus get feedback, but as often Python’s overnight success was the result of years of work.

Re: Ruby 3.2.0 is from another dimension

#70

Post by Mikeb85 »

mypalmike wrote: post #35
Mikeb85 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Python gained traction because of Google (Google used it initially then Guido worked for them for a decade+, vs. Matz at Heroku/salesforce) and then because it's the easiest way to use ML libs. That's it. It's slower than Ruby, has worse package management and less consistent syntax but if you want to use Tensorflow, PyTorch, etc..., it's the default.

Revisionist history. Python was huge before Google even existed.

??? Python was huge in the 90's? News to me. No one I knew knew about it until like 2010.
Post reply on HN