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)

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