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

Crystal for Rubyists

crystalforrubyists.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 94 posts

Re: Crystal for Rubyists

#51

Post by Gigachad »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #31
azangru wrote: post #30

> What’s awesome about Ruby? > Dynamically typed As someone who has experienced the joy and at least some feeling of safety from moving to typescript from javascript, I would seriously question that dynamic typing is awesome.

not all dynamically typed languages are the same, Ruby is strongly typed and JavaScript is generally described as a weakly typed language.

I’d hardly call ruby strongly typed. There is basically no way to verify anything statically so almost all issues show up in run time. Updating Rails or any gems on a production system is a nightmare where the only option is to have 20,000 unit tests and then hope nothing blows up when you release it.

Re: Crystal for Rubyists

#52

Post by Gigachad »

atmosx wrote: post #41
azangru wrote: post #30

> What’s awesome about Ruby? > Dynamically typed As someone who has experienced the joy and at least some feeling of safety from moving to typescript from javascript, I would seriously question that dynamic typing is awesome.

Ruby 3 supports type signatures: https://github.com/ruby/rbs

The rails creator DHH has indicated that rails would “absolutely not” be getting type support.

Re: Crystal for Rubyists

#53

Post by xcdzvyn »

cies wrote: post #34
unixhero wrote: post #21

I fucking love Crystal and Ruby. Never has a language literally made me happy like those two. " Amazement wow is this how easy I can achieve this. This is incredible!!!". Conversely Perl and C++ made me miserable, as I tried and tried and gave up learning them. I prefer Excel formulae to working with them.

> Perl and C++ made me miserable You compare to rather new, and "geared to learners", languages to some old and know-to-be-arcane languages. I'd be curious what you think of, for instance, Kotlin and Elm.

And Elixir :)

Re: Crystal for Rubyists

#54

Post by matthewmacleod »

Gigachad wrote: post #51
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not all dynamically typed languages are the same, Ruby is strongly typed and JavaScript is generally described as a weakly typed language.

I’d hardly call ruby strongly typed. There is basically no way to verify anything statically so almost all issues show up in run time. Updating Rails or any gems on a production system is a nightmare where the only option is to have 20,000 unit tests and then hope nothing blows up when you release it.

You have confused strong typing and static typing.

Re: Crystal for Rubyists

#55

Post by Existenceblinks »

azangru wrote: post #30

> What’s awesome about Ruby? > Dynamically typed As someone who has experienced the joy and at least some feeling of safety from moving to typescript from javascript, I would seriously question that dynamic typing is awesome.

This is the problem when people only know one language, especially javascript. And then have quite naive opinion about programming languages. Ones should try at least all one of big categories; one of ML family, one of C-like, one of Lisp dialect.

Re: Crystal for Rubyists

#56

Post by mrkeen »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #54
Gigachad wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d hardly call ruby strongly typed. There is basically no way to verify anything statically so almost all issues show up in run time. Updating Rails or any gems on a production system is a nightmare where the only option is to have 20,000 unit tests and then hope nothing blows up when you release it.

You have confused strong typing and static typing.

Some of us need the latter for the former.

What would you say some of the strengths of Ruby's type system are?

Re: Crystal for Rubyists

#57

Post by cies »

xcdzvyn wrote: post #53
cies wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perl and C++ made me miserable You compare to rather new, and "geared to learners", languages to some old and know-to-be-arcane languages. I'd be curious what you think of, for instance, Kotlin and Elm.

And Elixir :)

I feel that's pretty close to Ruby and Crystal. I was actually hoping for something more out of line (like C++ and Perl) but more modern.

Re: Crystal for Rubyists

#58

Post by cxr »

pizza234 wrote: post #33
open-source-ux wrote: post #29

Crystal is a lovely language. The language community is small though, and learning resources are also small. The story for Crystal is the same story for many programming languages: grow the interest of users, and find generous funding. My impression is that not many Ruby programmers have switched to Crystal. The slow(ish) Crystal compilation will not please Ruby users. And Crystal for Windows is still in beta. Despit…

> The slow(ish) Crystal compilation will not please Ruby users I don't know what's the general opinion, but distribution for dynamic languages is a nightmare (and I'm including intra-machine, ie. switching between environments). Personally, I'd be thrilled to trade off speed of compilation for distribution simplicity! > My impression is that not many Ruby programmers have switched to Crystal. This depends on the cont…

> distribution for dynamic languages is a nightmare

Weird statement. Software distribution generally is just a terrible mess, regardless of what sort of language it's written in. The one exception is JS, which happens to be dynamic and also has what is probably the most reliable and ubiquitous platform available—so much so that its distribution story is often credited, rightly or wrongly, as the only reason anyone actually uses it.

Re: Crystal for Rubyists

#59

Post by sarchertech »

cies wrote: post #35
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not all dynamically typed languages are the same, Ruby is strongly typed and JavaScript is generally described as a weakly typed language.

The word "strong" is not well defined in this context. But usually it is used for languages like Haskell, Idris, PureScript and Elm. Ruby does not do as many automatic casts as JS. In this regard it may be seen as "stronger".

Strong is frequently used incorrectly and as such the meaning has been diluted.

But used the way the OP is using it, strong vs weak is different from static vs dynamic.

Re: Crystal for Rubyists

#60

Post by sdogruyol »

compumike wrote: post #8

This is great Serdar. As an alternative to Chapter 2 I’ll also share https://github.com/compumike/crystal-docker-quickstart my project template which lets you get a Crystal (currently 1.6.2) dev environment running with just Docker. Good for kicking the tires, which is what I think your audience is probably wanting to do! And then eventually can install a binary package as you suggest.

Thanks a lot! Happy to have your PR :) https://github.com/sdogruyol/crystal-for-rubyists-en
Post reply on HN