Ruby survives on affection, not utility. Let’s move on.
Archived version: https://archive.is/20251204034843/https://www.wired.com/story/ruby-is-not-a-serious-programming-language/
Ruby survives on affection, not utility. Let’s move on.
Archived version: https://archive.is/20251204034843/https://www.wired.com/story/ruby-is-not-a-serious-programming-language/
None of the points in the article about the flaws of Ruby are because of Rails. In fact the article says the exact opposite - the only reason Ruby is still relevant is because of Rails!
you’re wrong. none of the points in the article say anything at all. the pillars that hold up the lies are
Sheon Han worked at Twitter. doubtful he was there between the 2011-2014 rewrite. I also doubt that he’s done much of anything with ruby since he was fired from Twitter after Musk destroyed it. especially so since he’s taken up freelance writing since 2021.
Sheon Han is attempting to stay relevant by desperately attacking a language he barely uses and hasn’t touched seriously since at least 2021.
you’re better off ignoring him and “journalists” like him.
Nobody said that.
Nobody said that.
I don’t think Ruby’s performance has significantly changed since then, so yes. Still bad.
Nobody said that.
Nobody said that.
More straw men than a scarecrow convention.
did you even read it?
Yes I read and understood it. :-D
I probably shouldn’t reply since apparently you’re still working on learning how to copy text…
Yes indeed, if you actually read his text, Ruby isn’t bad because Python/JS are good. It’s bad because it has failed to add static type checking. Python and JS are simply examples of languages that didn’t fail in the same way.
That quote says absolutely nothing about Matz or DHH making Ruby bad.
No, the text says that Ruby persists despite its badness due to inertia and nostalgia.
How can you accuse me of not reading it when you’re pasting literal quotes that contradict you? Insane.