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

Is Ruby Dying?

jmoses.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: Is Ruby Dying?

#151

Post by smonff »

Mic92 wrote: post #143
smonff wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just ask http://www.builtinperl.com/ for the reasons why. For exemple don't you know that DuckDuckGo is using a lot of Perl ? Another one, that is huge : YouPorn (itself) is using Catalyst. YOU-PORN ! In my opinion, the main Perl's strength is the cpan.org : Stop reinventing wheels, start building space rockets The Comprehensive Perl Archive Network (CPAN) currently has 128,529 Perl modules in 28,883 distributions, w…

Actually youporn, rewrote all their code in PHP: http://highscalability.com/blog/2012/4/2/youporn-targeting-2...

Damned ! Here is an information that should be uploaded to Wikipedia.

Re: Is Ruby Dying?

#152

Post by nkcode »

graph only shows that all smart coders switched to ruby and it is steady updating

also most gems in all areas are good enough already

Re: Is Ruby Dying?

#153

Post by patrickaljord »

rubiquity wrote: post #95
danielrhodes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Go, but in my opinion it is not an appropriate language for building web applications. It makes for great sub-components of a larger stack which are focused and do relatively low-level tasks (networking, file serving, caching, etc.). It is also great for scripting where you need easy out-of-the-box concurrency.

This times a million. I think Go is awesome for a little bit of systems programming but I'd pull my hair out trying to make a robust Web application with it. I feel the same way about Node.js. I wouldn't use either of these for a public facing HTTP application but if I needed some hyper performant internal system using RPCs then I would use them. Ruby's DSLs for writing things that Web application's need (serving HTM…

Have you given martini a try?https://github.com/codegangsta/martini

Re: Is Ruby Dying?

#154

Post by patrickaljord »

rubiquity wrote: post #89
delluminatus wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but I would expect to see still widely used: * Python - As a programming language for scientists and researchers, replacing Matlab and kin. * Go or Rust - A well-designed, modern language, easier to use than C++ but almost as fast, for enterprise applications or video games. Not sure about Google, but I hope Mozilla will still be around in 10 years. * Lua? - Not sure about this one... but it fills a niche…

"* Go or Rust - A well-designed, modern language, easier to use than C++ but almost as fast, for enterprise applications or video games. Not sure about Google, but I hope Mozilla will still be around in 10 years." Unfortunately I imagine that Google has enough money to be around at least 20-30 years.

Unfortunately? Yeah Google deserves to die, self driving cars, actual robots, Google glass, android, search, map reduce etc. Who needs this useless company that doesn't contribute anything to the world, right?

Re: Is Ruby Dying?

#155

Post by dasil003 »

hahainternet wrote: post #147
dasil003 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually a big fan of Perl, but your characterization of Ruby is wrong. Ruby is Perl with object-orientation first, nicer syntax is a minor detail after that.

It's the only major detail to me, because I can do the majority of what I would use in Ruby, in Perl. Nicer syntax is something I can't do though.

If you can constrain yourself a reasonable OO system in Perl why can't you constrain yourself to a nice subset of the syntax?

Re: Is Ruby Dying?

#156

Post by hahainternet »

dasil003 wrote: post #155
hahainternet wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the only major detail to me, because I can do the majority of what I would use in Ruby, in Perl. Nicer syntax is something I can't do though.

If you can constrain yourself a reasonable OO system in Perl why can't you constrain yourself to a nice subset of the syntax?

I can, I can deal with overly verbose maps or shifting variables off @_ but Ruby provides some similar features to Perl 6 right now. That is an advantage on its part. It's just not compelling enough to make me switch as Perl can do most of the rest just fine.

Re: Is Ruby Dying?

#157

Post by ChiperSoft »

That's a fifteen year graph, and does appear to depict a decline at the end. I'd like to see this data rescaled to just the last six months (unfortunately his data files are 404ing now).

If you want to find out if TV sales are declining, you don't compare against the 1950s.

Re: Is Ruby Dying?

#158

Post by morganherlocker »

Solarsail wrote: post #122
morganherlocker wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First off, popularity of a language shouldn't be as important as you seem to make it in starting a project. I think there is a minimum threshold to this. I support a large application written in an extremely obscure language (it's basically me and 5 other people on an old yahoo mailing list that make up the entire community). It is terrible. No unit testing frameworks, no http framework for rest calls, no decent UI…

Out of nearly-off-topic-curiosity, does this language have a website(page)? Was it new when you started your project? Have you been able to use libraries from other languages? Or is this really an island of 5 people? (Suddenly that sounds like Gilligan's island for devs)

I would prefer to keep the name out of the comments, just to prevent mud-slinging. That said, it is a proprietary language built for a niche data analysis market. It is basically a BASIC variant that probably came out around 95, and the application I now work with was started around that time. It was probably a great choice at the time, as its lack of extendibility was balanced by its performance and feature list in this particular space (GIS). Unfortunately, GIS has traditionally been a huge pain to develop for. The proprietary libraries really sink their teeth in on licensing and the open source modules are notoriously difficult to get up and running, especially in a server environment.

In response to this, I began building an open source javascript library that is nearing 1.0, and I am using it in new production work with great success. I chose javascript (node.js specifically) due mostly to performance with IO (huge in GIS) and its awesome ecosystem around npm. I am finding it much easier to build that one tricky library you need than to get the one tricky library for free and build everything else.

http://morganherlocker.com/post/turf

As to the 5 people... yep about 5-10, and my company employed a few of them. The rest are academics. The 'bus-factor' was pretty high before we switched off of it.

Re: Is Ruby Dying?

#159

Post by aaronem »

Demiurge wrote: post #62
hahainternet wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in Manchester. I write new Perl code. Python is Perl with a little nicer syntax and a shitload of baggage from overly opinionated people. Ruby is Perl with a little nicer syntax and no other advantages. I have found no compelling reason to switch, and lots of annoyances that don't seem to exist in Perl.

Following this logic, every language is Perl with a bit of this or that. Perl was one of the first of the kind, but people saw obvious problems with it and so they innovated with 'little nicer syntax' or 'little better object system'. You might not want any of this, but you can't deny most people are happier with Python or Ruby.

I'd say it's more like Perl is every language with a bit of this or that. A sufficiently "skilled" Perl hacker can write everything from bad C, to bad Lisp, to bad Fortran, in Perl -- and most certainly can write plenty of bad Perl in Perl, too. It's writing good Perl that's hard.
Post reply on HN