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
[–] 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)

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!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    you're wrong. none of the points in the article say anything at all. the pillars that hold up the lies are

    • ruby is bad because python/js good
    • matz is good but DHH is bad and so ruby is bad
    • Twitter failed 14 years ago because ruby is bad and so ruby is still bad
    • ruby is bad because it's old
    • ruby bad because it's not used as much as python/js

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    ruby is bad because python/js good

    Nobody said that.

    matz is good but DHH is bad and so ruby is bad

    Nobody said that.

    Twitter failed 14 years ago because ruby is bad and so ruby is still bad

    I don't think Ruby's performance has significantly changed since then, so yes. Still bad.

    ruby is bad because it’s old

    Nobody said that.

    ruby bad because it’s not used as much as python/js

    Nobody said that.

    More straw men than a scarecrow convention.

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

    ruby is bad because python/js good

    1000002575

    matz is good but DHH is bad and so ruby is bad

    1000002577

    Twitter failed 14 years ago because ruby is bad and so ruby is still bad

    1000002576

    ruby is bad because it’s old

    1000002578

    ruby bad because it’s not used as much as python/js

    1000002579

    More straw men than a scarecrow convention.

    did you even read it?

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

    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...

    ruby is bad because python/js good

    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.

    matz is good but DHH is bad and so ruby is bad

    That quote says absolutely nothing about Matz or DHH making Ruby bad.

    ruby is bad because it’s old

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent