5
Ruby Is Not a Serious Programming Language (www.wired.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

Not being the language for programming beginners and data scientists, probably aides that impression, though…

I think it was that back when it was relevant (but replace data scientists with web devs)

I never got interested in the ecosystem myself, but I've run into it every now and then. I feel like it's in the same place as PHP today: still used a lot for legacy reasons, but you'll get weird looks if you start a new project with it and you're under the age of 40

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I think it was that back when it was relevant (but replace data scientists with web devs)

    Sure, but if programs from that era are still around, chances are the maintainer is quite experienced by now and has fixed all the funky behaviour. 🙃

    I never got interested in the ecosystem myself, but I’ve run into it every now and then. I feel like it’s in the same place as PHP today: still used a lot for legacy reasons, but you’ll get weird looks if you start a new project with it and you’re under the age of 40

    Ten years ago, a university buddy of mine discovered Ruby and you might've thought a miracle happened from how excited he was for it. But yeah, that was also the last time I met someone in real life who was excited about Ruby. 😅

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent