Live data from Hacker News

Where does Ruby go from here?

blog.sefindustries.com

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Where does Ruby go from here?

#81

I don't want to leave ruby, but at the end of the day, it's slow. Jruby is pretty decent, but the clunkiness of the JVM takes the fun out of it. Maybe it's just the lack of a corporation pouring billions into it like google did with V8, but I suspect that ruby can never be fast, due to ObjectSpace and the like. That awesome/insane object model we all like so much is just impossible to optimise. All the other weird sh…

JRuby's really revived my love of Ruby. It's fast, it's powerful, and it's much easier to extend than CRuby. Jruby 9k and Truffle are both promising some pretty insane speedups, as well.

The JVM boot time is a bummer, but beyond that, there's not much to complain about.

Re: Where does Ruby go from here?

#82

I wish "I value performance and user experience" was on there. I'm not sure how happy you should be as a self centered developer with no empathy for the people using your software. Sometimes software can and should be ugly if it makes for a better end product.

Full free to submit a pull request. The idea is to make sure the tools and practices make it so a developer is happy writing good, performant code with a good user experience. If the code is ugly and hard, people won't do it.

"Make a pull request" is an awful suggestion and, honestly, a cop out. Most of don't have time to tune a programming language or framework, we'll just use a better tool and move on. Slow but pretty code is a brain dead goal.

Re: Where does Ruby go from here?

#83
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That's a perfectly valid choice. In some cases, it's a completely correct choice. But that's not the tradeoff that I want to make." The problem is that it's used too often to shun or control people that don't agree with a political ideology. A good example of this is the Mozilla CEO. An open and "accepting" community should also accept people they might not agree with..otherwise you should't call yourself open, acce…

> An open and "accepting" community should also accept people they might not agree with..otherwise you should't call yourself open, accepting, or inclusive. Being "accepting" does not imply being accepting of those who are themselves intolerant, and indeed the meaning and value of liberalism dissolves into something toothless and even dangerous when interpreted that way. If the Russel's paradox aspect of this you bug…

Nah, I think that you've still got to accept and engage with people who are intolerant of others--again, you yourself are a member of that group.

It's not usually a big deal if you are interacting in a strictly professional capacity: if they let their bigotry get in the way of good business and engineering and teamwork, you can drop them on those merits alone irrespective of their reasons for being subpar engineers or businessmen.

Re: Where does Ruby go from here?

#84

I don't want to leave ruby, but at the end of the day, it's slow. Jruby is pretty decent, but the clunkiness of the JVM takes the fun out of it. Maybe it's just the lack of a corporation pouring billions into it like google did with V8, but I suspect that ruby can never be fast, due to ObjectSpace and the like. That awesome/insane object model we all like so much is just impossible to optimise. All the other weird sh…

ObjectSpace isn't really a major issue. JRuby disables (most of) it by default for performance reasons and I've never had to turn it on for any real code.

Ruby has been a major source of improvements in software, especially tooling and web development, over the last 10 years. A lot of the newer languages have borrowed concepts popularized by Ruby (gem-style package management; bundler-style dependency management; same-language build tools like rake; rails and sinatra-esque web frameworks). And a lot of tooling for other languages has been written in Ruby (sometimes later replaced by same-language tools). I'd compare the role Ruby has played to Perl in the '90s.

I certainly hope Ruby doesn't go down Perl's path. It may be protected from that fate by two differences. First, there's no Perl 6-like project to distract attention and effort from the actively used version. Second, Ruby remains by far the best general-purpose language out there for those of us who like Smalltalk-style OO languages (everything an object, message passing, extreme late binding).

I too would really like to see Swift escape the Apple ecosystem, for a number of reasons, even though I'm unlikely to use it myself.

Re: Where does Ruby go from here?

#85
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there been a time in the last 50 years that your paragraph wouldn't have been just as appropriate? Why is today, September 4th 2014, special?

No, there really hasn't. And it's a little embarrassing. Lawyers, doctors, carpenters, electricians, engineers, etc. don't feel the need to produce countless rhetorical manifestos. I'm not sure why our profession (or craft, or whatever you want to call it) has to come with so much cultural baggage, especially when there are so many real problems left to be solved.

I think it's only natural because software development is an intrinsically creative endeavour.

Re: Where does Ruby go from here?

#86
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy that coined the word in the 1950s used the word in a negative sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology

I must admit I never read the school book definition of the word - so yeah, maybe I'm not understanding meritocracy. To me it means: The words/opinion of person with the most expertise on a certain topic should have the most weight in a discussion/decision. In that sense I don't care about gender, skin color, religion, etc. as long as the person knows what he/she is talking about. So I don't see how it would be oppos…

The idea that expertise matters is fine.

Where meritocracy gets bad isn't the "merit" part, it's the "-ocracy" bit - the idea that people who have the most merit get to call the shots.

It's problematic in all sorts of ways. First, who gets to define merit? Well, probably the meritocrats. If we assume they're rational agents (which we must, by definition), then they will choose to define merit in the most self-serving manner possible, in order to consolidate their own position, status, and power. And even if we don't assume they're perfectly rational agents (which is more likely, if contradictory to the basic idea behind meritocracy) we should still expect to see self-serving definitions of merit that grow organically out of everyone's bias for their own perspective. Consider the history of racial bias in IQ testing, for example.

Second, by the people who merit the highest in a meritocracy have different backgrounds, and therefore slightly different interests, from everyone who's lumped together in the lumpy part of the bell curve. This is inevitable - in a world where education costs money, you'll have a hard time getting to be the most educated at anything without coming from a position of relatively greater economic privilege than others. Pythagoras was no peasant, nor was Galileio or Newton or Einstein or Feynman. Therefore, we should not assume that they will make decisions in accord with the best interests of society as a whole. And their current circumstances are probably sharply different from most others' too. Probably the person who knows more than anyone else about investment banking is himself (I think we can safely assume it's a he - see below) an investment banker. That by no circumstances means that this person is the most fit to dictate investment banking regulation. It's true that he's got the expertise to draw up a set of rules that will encourage almost any outcome, but the outcome we should all be most worried about is the one where investment bankers get outlandishly wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Finally, it's impressive how effectively people can use their pre-existing merit to influence others' ability to acquire merit. Often their ability to do so is so well-honed that they can wield it almost constantly without even realizing they're doing so. See: White men in academia, white men in fraternities, white men in software development, etc.

Re: Where does Ruby go from here?

#87
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any experience with Python? IMHO I think python fits that niche better than ruby or perl.

Can you give reasons?

Python is installed by default on most linux distros, from my experience it is rare if ruby is pre-installed.

Python in my opinion is easier to write, and reading it is usually like reading plain english.

Python has a much larger community/ecosystem than ruby outside of web frameworks (rails kills django in popularity).

Re: Where does Ruby go from here?

#88
post #58

The Happiness Manifesto? Happiness-driven developers? Enough, already. This is an interesting time for computer programming and computer science in general. We're witnessing the coming of age of a very important profession. We owe it to ourselves to advance this profession by developing a body of knowledge based on scientific, mathematical, and engineering principles, as well as empirical observation of what has work…

We're talking about a community where some of the brightest minds already don't come from a traditional background. Several well-known Rubyists have degrees in Theatre and Music. The community is where all the value is-that's where the innovation is coming from. People build products, so culture is essential.

As for the Theatre and Music... we can see the results... and the results are: Ruby is going from 1% people using it to 0.1%. The people that actually have to make things work have left Ruby.

Re: Where does Ruby go from here?

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must admit I never read the school book definition of the word - so yeah, maybe I'm not understanding meritocracy. To me it means: The words/opinion of person with the most expertise on a certain topic should have the most weight in a discussion/decision. In that sense I don't care about gender, skin color, religion, etc. as long as the person knows what he/she is talking about. So I don't see how it would be oppos…

The idea that expertise matters is fine. Where meritocracy gets bad isn't the "merit" part, it's the "-ocracy" bit - the idea that people who have the most merit get to call the shots. It's problematic in all sorts of ways. First, who gets to define merit? Well, probably the meritocrats. If we assume they're rational agents (which we must, by definition), then they will choose to define merit in the most self-serving…

Ok, I see how this could turn bad. But what is the alternative?

In our current system people "run the show" who are good at politics and know how to use their elbows. In my books that's not any better than what you described.

Re: Where does Ruby go from here?

#90
post #69
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this comment shows exactly what I was getting at. If no one disagrees, the happiness manifesto will die in a sea of nods and shrugs. :) > I'd rather have really good code, even if written by a racist or sexist, than bad code (period). That's a perfectly valid choice. In some cases, it's a completely correct choice. But that's not the tradeoff that I want to make. Take a look at the original Agile Manifesto: h…

Can we use this as an excuse to drop Node.js, please? After all, Javascript was created by a homophobe. We should use a more minorities-friendly language and not encourage the use of problematic technologies made by bigots. Edit: also, someone claimed that a lead maintainer of the Linux kernel is a rape apologist. That's good enough to drop Linux, right?

`also, someone claimed that a lead maintainer of the Linux kernel is a rape apologist. That's good enough to drop Linux, right?`

If that was proved to be the true, then I would want him or her to work on Linux from jail.

Post reply on HN