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

Ruby 3.4.0

ruby-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 282 posts

Re: Ruby 3.4.0

#251

Post by phoronixrly »

lmm wrote: post #225
phoronixrly wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will need to sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement (using an online form) for us to able to review and merge your work. Read my lips: N. O. Read the CLA. This is a trap, do not get yourself or your company caught in it. It is open-source for now, until it gets enough traction. Then the rug will be pulled, the code will be relicensed as well as any further development or contributions. This is insane , I cannot…

That's completely normal for cathedral-style open source development. The FSF themselves required copyright assignment (not just a CLA) if you wanted to contribute to GNU projects (e.g. GCC) for many years; several GNU projects still do. You only need to sign the CLA if you want to contribute to upstream, you can maintain your own fork if you want, and the code that is open source today will always be open source. Fr…

How can you compare the FLA with Oracle's CLA??? From the FSFA:

> An FLA offers a special clause against this kind of situation, in order to protect the Free Software project against potentially malicious intentions of the Trustee. According to this provision, if the Trustee acts against the principles of Free Software, all granted rights and licences return to their original owners. That means that the Trustee will be effectively prevented from continuing any activity which is contrary to the principles of Free Software.

You can name a few more rugpulls made possible by contributor agreements that permitted blatant abuse of power, and Oracle is also not innocent in this. Off the top of my head I remember the VirtualBox extensions fiasco. Oracle changed the license then started sending bills to companies.

Re: Ruby 3.4.0

#252

Post by pjmlp »

phoronixrly wrote: post #131
ksec wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean Java and MySQL are from Oracle as well.

MySQL was forked and the fork is the defacto standard shipped by linux distros. To me the only MySQL that existed was the one by Sun, now MariaDB has completely succeeded it. Do you see the licensing/distrubution clusterfuck with Java as a good example of open-source stewardship by Oracle? Which Java disto are you using?[1] Do you see the Google v. Oracle Java API copyright case as a good example of open-source stewa…

> Do you see the Google v. Oracle Java API copyright case as a good example of open-source stewardship by Oracle?

100% YES, given the clusterfuck support of standard Java on Android.

It is no different from what Microsoft has made with J++ on Windows, and like they came up with .NET, Google came up with Kotlin migration, ironically they keep relying on the standard Java that they don't support, for InteliJ, Gradle, and everything else that powers Android SDK on the desktop.

Google could have avoided the lawsuit if they bought Sun, after torpedoing it with Android, they thought no one would buy the company and were safe from paying anyone, wrong call.

Re: Ruby 3.4.0

#253

Post by zahlman »

pjmlp wrote: post #242
nerdponx wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works in Python. The C/C++ is shipped in the form of well-established libraries like Numpy and PyTorch. Very few end users ever interact with the C/C++ parts, except for specialists with special requirements, and library contributors themselves.

It is definitely how it works in Python. As if there is nothing else to chose from regarding Python performance issues and libraries used by folks. Not everything is fashionable AI.

Can you name specific "un-fashionable" AI projects that are dependent on Python code for things that have any significant performance impact, which are seeing significant benefits from Python JIT implementations?

Re: Ruby 3.4.0

#254

Post by nerdponx »

pjmlp wrote: post #242
nerdponx wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works in Python. The C/C++ is shipped in the form of well-established libraries like Numpy and PyTorch. Very few end users ever interact with the C/C++ parts, except for specialists with special requirements, and library contributors themselves.

It is definitely how it works in Python. As if there is nothing else to chose from regarding Python performance issues and libraries used by folks. Not everything is fashionable AI.

The comment thread was specifically about AI, so my comments were specifically meant for that context. I wasn't clear enough, sorry for the confusion.

Re: Ruby 3.4.0

#255

Post by nerdponx »

pjmlp wrote: post #241
nerdponx wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI The push for Python performance and JIT compilation has little to do with AI and more to do with Python's explosion in adoption for backend server applications in the 2010s, as well as the dedication of smaller projects like PyPy that existed largely because it was possible to make them exist. The ML/AI boom helped spread Python even farther and wider, yes, but none of the core language performance improvements…

Not at all, given Facebook and Microsoft involvement into making CPython folks finally accept a JIT has to be part of the story, coupled by NVidia and Intel work on GPU JIT DSLs for Python.

Yeah but how much of the Microsoft and Facebook effort was due to AI directly, as opposed to the general popularity of Python? which is undoubtedly driven nowadays by AI, but indirectly.

Re: Ruby 3.4.0

#256

Post by rakoo »

int_19h wrote: post #250
Maledictus wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still looks much less beautiful. Python feels to me like it can't make up its mind.

I'll take "properly generalized" over "looks beautiful" any time. At the end of the day, the purpose of the code is to do something, not to be pretty. FWIW you can have both in this case; you just need to make dotted method calls syntactic sugar for global function invocations.

And some will say the exact opposite: contrary to what would seem obvious, code is primarily meant to be read by humans, then written by humans. Because you'll spend way more time unfucking code than actually spitting it.

Re: Ruby 3.4.0

#257

Post by e12e »

replwoacause wrote: post #232

If I want to make a SSR site using Ruby, are there any good frontend UI libraries that make doing this easier? It’d be nice if there was some Ruby abstraction for writing HTML, CSS, and JS that makes building interactive UIs easier (possibly built on top of HTMX, AlpineJS, etc).

You might want to look at view components:

https://viewcomponent.org/

https://evilmartians.com/chronicles/viewcomponent-in-the-wil...

https://thoughtbot.com/blog/hotwire-turbo-streaming-viewcomp...

Re: Ruby 3.4.0

#258

Post by nonconstant »

yyyyz wrote: post #96
lucasoshiro wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ruby is something like a "improved" Python, with a better OO system, a code block syntax that makes it easy to use callbacks, more consistent standard libraries, etc. It could be what Python is today. I wouldn't say niche, but the killer app of Ruby is Rails, a web framework similar to Django. In fact, many people treat them as they are the same. But there are big projects that use Ruby and that are not related to Ra…

Can you name one way Ruby has parity with Python? Ruby is a dead language that uses sponsored posts here. Nobody actually uses this since like 2018 but some people are paid to hype it up. Just look at the empty praise. No real applications mentioned.

It's not just the well-known GitHub, Shopify, Chime, Figma, Zendesk, Convertkit (Kit), Coinbase etc. See the "few" companies here, actively hiring Rubyists for no reason https://rubyonremote.com/remote-companies/ Square, Gitlab, Cisco, Figma, Instacart, Block, Calendly, 1password, and so on

Re: Ruby 3.4.0

#259

Post by nonconstant »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #7

What does ruby do well that other languages don't? What is the niche it's trying to fill?

Ruby is optimized for developer happiness, and it is not a small thing. Ruby on Rails is optimized to build successful web application businesses as a highly efficient team. It minimizes boilerplate code, and thus, time to market, while giving guidance (the Rails Way) on how to design for growth and scale.

Re: Ruby 3.4.0

#260

Post by lmm »

phoronixrly wrote: post #251
lmm wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's completely normal for cathedral-style open source development. The FSF themselves required copyright assignment (not just a CLA) if you wanted to contribute to GNU projects (e.g. GCC) for many years; several GNU projects still do. You only need to sign the CLA if you want to contribute to upstream, you can maintain your own fork if you want, and the code that is open source today will always be open source. Fr…

How can you compare the FLA with Oracle's CLA??? From the FSFA: > An FLA offers a special clause against this kind of situation, in order to protect the Free Software project against potentially malicious intentions of the Trustee. According to this provision, if the Trustee acts against the principles of Free Software, all granted rights and licences return to their original owners. That means that the Trustee will…

I don't know what the "FLA" or "FSFA" is (are they real things or is this an AI-generated comment?), but the FSF traditionally required copyright assignment, which gave them all the rights in Oracle's CLA and more.
Post reply on HN