From Rust to Ruby
xlii.space
From Rust to Ruby
1–10 of 108 posts
Re: From Rust to Ruby
#2"I have no idea if it works or not because I haven’t yet tried running it. But it's 5x shorter!"
Re: From Rust to Ruby
#3At first I thought this would be an interesting article, but as soon as they mentioned using an LLM to do the conversion I lost all interest. It's like saying "I wanted this done so I got my underling to do it, here is my story...". Like why would I bother to read it then, as it was clearly not you doing the conversion or putting any thought into it.
Re: From Rust to Ruby
#4I'm not sure any language + framework prioritizes developer happiness as much as Ruby on Rails.
Re: From Rust to Ruby
#5"I have no idea if it works or not because I haven’t yet tried running it. But it's 5x shorter!"
The fact that it doesn't end with what happens when they run `rails server` makes me think they did it and didn't like the results.
Re: From Rust to Ruby
#6I'm not sure any language + framework prioritizes developer happiness as much as Ruby on Rails.
I get a similar feeling from Elixir and Phoenix without the method_missing foot gun.
Re: From Rust to Ruby
#7From whatever to Go ... hype!
From Go to Rust ... hype!
From Rust to Ruby ... the new hype!?
Re: From Rust to Ruby
#8To count lines of rust code:
fd . -e rs -uu | xargs cat | wc -l
Why not just:
find . -name '*.rs' | xargs wc -l
Re: From Rust to Ruby
#9>But before I did so I researched first. I asked a few instances to analyse the project in terms of gains of complexity, stability, testability, etc., and while (obviously) stability would drop (no types in Ruby) it’s not that awful (Sorbet has types in Ruby!).
Is it not a rage-bait argument to say that not having types implies less stability?
Re: From Rust to Ruby
#10>But before I did so I researched first. I asked a few instances to analyse the project in terms of gains of complexity, stability, testability, etc., and while (obviously) stability would drop (no types in Ruby) it’s not that awful (Sorbet has types in Ruby!). Is it not a rage-bait argument to say that not having types implies less stability?
No? Maybe the industry can now talk maturely about tradeoffs like that rather than pretending they don't exist.