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

Ruby 2.0.0 Released

ruby-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 303 posts

Re: Ruby 2.0.0 Released

#141

Post by venus »

mosselman wrote: post #56
tferris wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Probably 75% of new startups are using rails, and rightly so. You'd need a good reason not to use it. "Rusty slow legacy systems" - what nonsense. 75%? Evidence? You are the one who is talking nonsense, sorry to be direct and getting on Reddit level but you started. > 2. If there was a better language, they'd probably learn it? Or are you trying to insinuate Ruby programmers are dumb/lazy? Do I really have to te…

Firstly (Disclaimer) I am a Rails developer, I choose to be one right now, until (if) I find that my efforts are better spent elsewhere. I agree with tferris to some extent. Those arguments are nonsensical to say the least. This might be a feeling, I am not one to shout random feeling-based percentages, but I feel that people, in general, not just HN, don't realise that you can just claim things in this way. 75%? Whe…

> By this logic anything that the masses do is better?

Yeah, I could have worded that better. The OP said:

  Why people still use Ruby?
  2. Because they do not want to learn new languages and can stay in their comfort zone
Which implies that a reason people are "still" using ruby is that they are too lazy to switch to one of the new, "better" languages or frameworks. I was just trying to point out, maybe they haven't identified that there's a better language or framework yet? I am not aware of any obviously superior alternative and if I found one, of course I'd start learning about it.

75% was a wild-ass guess which I nonetheless believe is pretty much right. But maybe it's 50%. Who knows. The point was, rails devs are not solely working to maintain "rusty slow legacy systems".

> I am a Rails developer, I choose to be one right now, until (if) I find that my efforts are better spent elsewhere.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Re: Ruby 2.0.0 Released

#144

Post by revskill »

tykko wrote: post #81
tferris wrote: post #10

Today, I'll lose at least 50 karma points, but it's worth: Why people still use Ruby? 1. Because they get dream day rates for maintaining rusty slow legacy systems 2. Because they do not want to learn new languages and can stay in their comfort zone 3. Because they think it's still 2005 and nobody cares about slow server response times And now Ruby lovers, click on downvote or give your reasons why you still use Ruby…

Ruby lovers are all about "feelings" and "style", they don't care if their language of choice is objectively worse than, say, Python or Lua. Ruby truly is the Apple of the programming world.

You're wrong. Do you know Ruby is the breed of so many developers (who has used other languages, too) ?. You should compare Ruby to open source philosophy, it's one of its implementation. Yes, if Ruby was dead, open source is dead too, i believe it !

Re: Ruby 2.0.0 Released

#145

Post by fatboy »

siong1987 wrote: post #107
noelwelsh wrote: post #83

I do wonder about the long term success of Ruby. Rails is easily the most visible project for Ruby. Rails is big, and all that code represents a high barrier to entry for any framework in a different language that wants to compete. However, a lot of people I talk to are moving to pure JS front-end + REST backend. In this world Rails doesn't deliver any particular value (in my opinion). Ruby also has utility for doing…

RubyMotion is actually pretty cool. So far, the adoption of RubyMotion isn't too bad.

Agreed. As is MacRuby, though it doesn't compile down like RubyMotion. As is Hamish Sanderson's RB-Appscript (AppleScript replacement), although the deprecation of carbon events has sunk it sadly.

Re: Ruby 2.0.0 Released

#146

Post by damoncali »

AlexanderDhoore wrote: post #31
reinhardt wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "so far apart"?

I think they are very different too... I just can't explain how or where. Some people SWEAR by one of the two, and refuse to use the other. That's pretty harsh for languages that similar. There must be a reason... (The simplicity vs elegance argument makes sense) Edit: I think I mean the communities are far apart.

That's because the languages are so similar. There is very little reason to become expert at both.

Re: Ruby 2.0.0 Released

#147

Post by rebyn »

marvwhere wrote: post #99

my personal best new feature is: "The UTF-8 default encoding, which make many magic comments omissible" because i'm from Germany and we had to add: # coding: utf-8 in every freaking controller to get our german stupid letters (öäüß) to run without problems. so i'm looking forward to my next project where i can use 2.0 from the scratch. thank u!

Agree. Everytime I do locales in Vietnamese I have to do the "magic encoding". Not anymore. Fsh.

Re: Ruby 2.0.0 Released

#148

Post by rjbond3rd »

coldtea wrote: post #108
smnrchrds wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just think it will slowly become less relevant. That's true for virtually anything. Do you think C/C++ or Java or JS will be mainstream 30 years from now. They will be in the same situation FORTRAN is today: important because of lots of legacy code, but not a viable choice when starting a new project. Of course some of them will never die. LISP comes to my mind. :-)

> Of course some of them will never die. LISP comes to my mind. :-) Or, to put it another way, LISP was never alive to begin with. If Ruby/Python had a community and third party libraries the size of LISP we would consider them mostly irrelevant languages.

> ...we would consider them mostly irrelevant languages.

And apparently "we" are using "irrelevant" to mean not fashionable. Or does it mean, "Do not use for new IT projects" or something? What does it matter what other people do, especially those with a strong (if small) community, frameworks, libraries, books, articles, conferences...

And where does Smalltalk fall? I hate to tell those people their language is "irrelevant" -- will their programs crash? And which LISP, by the way?

This irrelevance property is dumber than a language debate because we don't even debate them, we condemn them from the outside by applying our own arbitrary criteria. Why do we need to belittle the work of others? Maybe we are not as sure as we appear.

Re: Ruby 2.0.0 Released

#149

Post by mitchty »

tferris wrote: post #30
obilgic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you just because of your anarchical attitude ... That is not the right way to start a healthy/useful discussion.

> That is not the right way to start a healthy/useful discussion. Maybe you are right but I am just fed up that on HN the forefront of new tech still such old slow technology gets upvoted on a regular base mostly by people fearing their go to tech is vanishing away. Ruby/DHH/its entire opinionated ecosystem is so 2005.

> is so 2005

So you have no actual quantifiable arguments and resort to this and ad hominem attacks on people that use a programming language? Not the best way to make your case.

Re: Ruby 2.0.0 Released

#150

Post by wyuenho »

vidarh wrote: post #111
noelwelsh wrote: post #83

I do wonder about the long term success of Ruby. Rails is easily the most visible project for Ruby. Rails is big, and all that code represents a high barrier to entry for any framework in a different language that wants to compete. However, a lot of people I talk to are moving to pure JS front-end + REST backend. In this world Rails doesn't deliver any particular value (in my opinion). Ruby also has utility for doing…

As a Ruby user that finds Rails annoying and not something I like working with, I don't think that's all that relevant. A lot of people have come to Ruby because of Rails, but a lot of Ruby people dislike Rails too. There's a plethora of web frameworks for Ruby that have sprung up exactly because of people who want to use Ruby but don't like Rails. In terms for barrier to entry with Python, the issue is that a lot of…

I have a habit of bringing up this page every time I hear someone talk about Python whitespace. I'm not sure if you've read this, but here it is anyway.

http://www.secnetix.de/olli/Python/block_indentation.hawk

Summary: Python's whitespace usage is nothing like Make's.

Post reply on HN