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

Ruby 4.0.0

ruby-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 197 posts

Re: Ruby 4.0.0

#91

Post by wiseowise »

dismalaf wrote: post #89
wiseowise wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody cares about Ruby outside of RoR Python is one of the Lingua Franca of scientific, data, and most importantly, ai communities Has much bigger community than Ruby Has much, much better tooling story Has much better gradual typing story Isn’t THAT much slower than Ruby, there are far more attractive targets than Ruby if you care about performance

> Python is one of the Lingua Franca of scientific, data, and most importantly, ai communities You mean it's the most used frontend for all the C and C++ libraries that are used for scientific computing, data and AI.

Semantics.

Re: Ruby 4.0.0

#92

Post by clanky »

dajonker wrote: post #54
ergocoder wrote: post #9

I haven't looked at Ruby for a long time. I've moved away due to the lack of typing. Any degree of typing would be helpful. Does it support typing yet?

In my honest opinion, if you can't live without static typing, Ruby just isn't for you. Adding static typing to a dynamic language mostly gives you the disadvantages of both, without a lot of benefits. It's better to stick to languages that were designed with static types from the start. I love programming in Ruby, having to worry about type annotations and the additional constraints that come with them would take a…

> Adding static typing to a dynamic language mostly gives you the disadvantages of both, without a lot of benefits.

As an engineer at a firm doing heavy duty data pipelines and internal tooling in a Sorbet-ified codebase, I disagree pretty strongly. While Sorbet type signatures are never going to win a syntax beauty contest, they are more than worth their weight in the way I can rely on them to catch typing and nilability goofs, and often serve as helpful documentation. Meanwhile, the internal code of most functions I write still looks like straight Ruby, fluent and uncluttered.

A good CI story that leans on tapioca was crucial here for us.

Re: Ruby 4.0.0

#93

Post by clanky »

azuanrb wrote: post #78
networked wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adding static typing to a dynamic language mostly gives you the disadvantages of both, without a lot of benefits. Can you elaborate? I don't share this experience, and I'm interested in bringing static typing to a language without static typing, so I'd like to understand. In new Python and JavaScript codebases, optional typing has had clear benefits for refactoring and correctness and low costs for me. Legacy codeb…

Part of it is because Ruby imo, have a very nice syntax. With type annotation, it's becoming "ugly", a lot more verbose. It's no longer English-like. I do agree type have some advantages, but we need to get the DX right. I've been using Ruby for more than 10 years now, and I only started using LSP recently. To me it's a nice addition but I can live without it. Type is just one of the tools, not the only one imo. Not…

> With type annotation, it's becoming "ugly", a lot more verbose. It's no longer English-like.

In our codebase that uses Sorbet I find this is really only true at function boundaries. Within a function it is pretty rare that anything needs to be spelled out with inline annotations to satisfy the compiler.

Re: Ruby 4.0.0

#94

Post by amazingman »

screenothethird wrote: post #80
chucke wrote: post #79

Happy bday ruby! For the usual doomsdaysayers saying "ruby can't X so I left it for Y", when X is typing, RBS is becoming the accepted standard (now that sorbet supports it),and RBS inline notation next to signature/code too (for peeps complaining about separate files); when X is LSP, ruby-lsp is the standard and already supports "go to definition" (its major hole for a long time), and its plugin architecture allows…

It’s just inferior to Python, nobody is making a more complex argument than that. Why ever use Ruby when there’s a virtually identical system that’s faster with a bigger community.

Blanket statements like this are unhelpfully tribal. Ruby has its uses, and underpins one of the most successful (and cloned) MVC frameworks of all time. But yeah, Python received the attention of data scientists early on and now it's a lingua franca of sorts in that domain. Since AI is so hot right now that makes Python seem superior, but really that's just contingency.

If you're going to make claims, support them.

Re: Ruby 4.0.0

#95

Post by block_dagger »

rco8786 wrote: post #87
chucke wrote: post #79

Happy bday ruby! For the usual doomsdaysayers saying "ruby can't X so I left it for Y", when X is typing, RBS is becoming the accepted standard (now that sorbet supports it),and RBS inline notation next to signature/code too (for peeps complaining about separate files); when X is LSP, ruby-lsp is the standard and already supports "go to definition" (its major hole for a long time), and its plugin architecture allows…

Fairly hardcore rubyist here. Ruby-lsp is excellent. But in no way is RBS becoming standard. Maybe it will, I don’t know. But adoption is very, very low as of today. Rbs-inline is just someone’s pet project and has very little activity (though it does appear that the person who wrote it is trying to implement it directly into Rbs now, which would be great) Personally I can’t see any comment based typing system gainin…

As long as Matz is firmly against, inline typing should never be a part of Ruby. I started working on a large Rails codebase that adopted Sorbet and it is nothing but an impediment to progress.

Re: Ruby 4.0.0

#96

Post by block_dagger »

screenothethird wrote: post #80
chucke wrote: post #79

Happy bday ruby! For the usual doomsdaysayers saying "ruby can't X so I left it for Y", when X is typing, RBS is becoming the accepted standard (now that sorbet supports it),and RBS inline notation next to signature/code too (for peeps complaining about separate files); when X is LSP, ruby-lsp is the standard and already supports "go to definition" (its major hole for a long time), and its plugin architecture allows…

It’s just inferior to Python, nobody is making a more complex argument than that. Why ever use Ruby when there’s a virtually identical system that’s faster with a bigger community.

Why? Because Python is generally slower, uses significant whitespace in its syntax, and lacks the metaprogramming features of Ruby.

Re: Ruby 4.0.0

#97

Post by BowBun »

screenothethird wrote: post #80
chucke wrote: post #79

Happy bday ruby! For the usual doomsdaysayers saying "ruby can't X so I left it for Y", when X is typing, RBS is becoming the accepted standard (now that sorbet supports it),and RBS inline notation next to signature/code too (for peeps complaining about separate files); when X is LSP, ruby-lsp is the standard and already supports "go to definition" (its major hole for a long time), and its plugin architecture allows…

It’s just inferior to Python, nobody is making a more complex argument than that. Why ever use Ruby when there’s a virtually identical system that’s faster with a bigger community.

In what ways is it inferior? Neither Ruby or Python are 'fast', so if that is one of your qualifiers you've already made a suboptimal choice.

As for a bigger community, what does that serve? The large python community adds misdirection and more voices to a language that lacks some basic features still. Async/sync code models are still being finalized whereas Ruby has been stable in this regard for 10+ years. Same with tooling - the Ruby side is more consistent and stable: Sidekiq for background jobs (Celery is barely coming to maturity), Bundler for dependencies (pip? poetry? uv?). Mature auth + other frameworks like Devise.

Having worked in both languages professionally, I strongly disagree with your take.

Re: Ruby 4.0.0

#98

Post by array_key_first »

nurettin wrote: post #48
ornornor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO programming on windows is just asking for punishment. Unless it’s a Microsoft language, you’re so much better off on Linux or macOS.

To be fair, vscode and .net core on linux is pretty much like having windows and visual studio at this point.

Without the debugger, unfortunately. You still need VS or Rider for that.

Re: Ruby 4.0.0

#99

Post by throwaway613745 »

block_dagger wrote: post #95
rco8786 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairly hardcore rubyist here. Ruby-lsp is excellent. But in no way is RBS becoming standard. Maybe it will, I don’t know. But adoption is very, very low as of today. Rbs-inline is just someone’s pet project and has very little activity (though it does appear that the person who wrote it is trying to implement it directly into Rbs now, which would be great) Personally I can’t see any comment based typing system gainin…

As long as Matz is firmly against, inline typing should never be a part of Ruby. I started working on a large Rails codebase that adopted Sorbet and it is nothing but an impediment to progress.

DHH also doesn’t like typing in Ruby at all, and Rails is designed around what he likes.

Re: Ruby 4.0.0

#100

Post by Calavar »

screenothethird wrote: post #80
chucke wrote: post #79

Happy bday ruby! For the usual doomsdaysayers saying "ruby can't X so I left it for Y", when X is typing, RBS is becoming the accepted standard (now that sorbet supports it),and RBS inline notation next to signature/code too (for peeps complaining about separate files); when X is LSP, ruby-lsp is the standard and already supports "go to definition" (its major hole for a long time), and its plugin architecture allows…

It’s just inferior to Python, nobody is making a more complex argument than that. Why ever use Ruby when there’s a virtually identical system that’s faster with a bigger community.

Because Ruby is just a better thought out language than Python is. It had a sane package management story 15 years before Python. It doesn't rely on weird hacks like exception throwing for iterator control flow. It doesn't have nearly as many warts and footguns on basic operations (for example, in Python csv.writer(file).writerows(rows) is broken unless you remembered to set the newline mode on the file; in Ruby file.write(rows.to_csv) just works). Thanks to a sane VM design it's mainline JIT can actually run code faster than interpreted code (something that CPython's JIT can't do [1])

Many Pythonistas are woefully ignorant of what's going on outside their siloed community.

[1] https://fidget-spinner.github.io/posts/jit-reflections.html

Post reply on HN