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 buggier than Python is a really low bar.

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

    Perhaps, yes. 😅

    It was a diplomatic way of saying that I doubt the author's assessment that Ruby's tooling is worse than Python's. Partially, because Python's tooling has traditionally been terrible (even if it's been improving in the past two years, from what I hear). But yeah, partially because I do not see Ruby programs being as buggy as they insinuate here...

  • source
  • parent