71–76 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not on agenda and it will never happen. There are so many languages with fine typing, why break a dynamic one by adding stuff to it?
> It's not on agenda and it will never happen. I believe Matz has said that it is on the agenda for Ruby 3.0: that it will have static typing and that it will be optional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like optional types as well, but more because I'm lazy. The Elm and Haskell people are not complaining about types, and given that every function takes SOMEthing (of some implicit type) and usually spits out SOMEthing (of some implicit type), I can hardly see how it will "dictate the design" more than create a bit more validation code.
Not having this flame war. I have my reasons, you have yours. We will continue writing code using our separate ways. Certain patterns are awkward or even impossible in statically typed languages and you need to bypass the type system to get things done so implicit or not, static type systems have a cost. There is a benefit as well but the kinds of systems I work on I don't need the extra validation. I need the abilit…
These improvements feel like amateur hour. No leadership no roadmap no goals.
Ruby is the first language I really like. The core concept of the language is small, just not easy to get, but the change on how to programming is significant. Sadly, Ruby is not the language for the multi-core world, and many advantages of using it is disappearing. Although Ruby is changing, 2.3, 2.4, maybe 3.0, but what's the difference?
MRI isn't the implementation for the multi-core world, but MRI isn't the only Ruby implementation; on language features, JRuby, particularly, isn't particularly far behind (the current version runs Ruby 2.3 code; I wouldn't expect 2.4 support to be that far behind), and fully supports thread-based parallelism.
Ruby is the first language I really like. The core concept of the language is small, just not easy to get, but the change on how to programming is significant. Sadly, Ruby is not the language for the multi-core world, and many advantages of using it is disappearing. Although Ruby is changing, 2.3, 2.4, maybe 3.0, but what's the difference?
Great to see my favorite language evolving! I also use various lisps, Java, Haskell, Typescript, JavaScript, Python, etc., but I am happiest when coding in Ruby. Unfortunately, most of what I do now is machine learning, and Python wrappers for underlying C++ code have by far more support than Ruby. (Ruby does have some great ML projects and libraries though).
http://www.somatic.io/blog/tensorflow-is-coming-to-ruby
It's a Ruby wrapper for the popular Google TensorFlow ML library. It will probably be completed before this autumn because it was originally a GSOC project (and couldn't be admitted because it was found to be missing some Google requirements at the last moment). It's now crowdfunded but it seems that Google is still offering some degree of support to interested developers [1].
In the meanwhile also check this out https://gist.github.com/gbuesing/865b814d312f46775cda "Resources for Machine Learning in Ruby", some of which are again wrappers around popular ML C libraries, thus removing the problem about sheer speed.