The death of Ruby?
-
Perfect onebox :D
-
The evidence is in the jobs: Java, JavaScript, .Net, HTML, and Python topped the list of languages found most often in tech job postings in the past year
But... I was told .NET is dying!
-
Meanwhile. one of my colleagues has informed me that he's been learning Ruby over summer because they're adding support for it to Unity. I called bullshit on it because Ruby is dying, and my own (small) research into the matter shows nothing that says Unity will be adding any sort of official support for Ruby. So I dunno where he got that from.
-
@atazhaia said in The death of Ruby?:
they're adding support for it to Unity
Game engine? Desktop environment? VMWare feature?
Filed under: FUCKING HELL, WHY IS EVERYTHING NAMED UNITY IF I ONLY PRESS BACKSPACE ONCE?
-
@onyx Game engine. He already knows C# anyway, and I dunno why you'd use anything else for Unity (game engine) if you know it.
-
@atazhaia said in The death of Ruby?:
@onyx Game engine. He already knows C# anyway, and I dunno why you'd use anything else for Unity (game engine) if you know it.
Based on some quick searching, people want Ruby for high-level scripting, where currently there's only Boo or
a bastardised JavaScriptUnityScript.On that note, the wiki page comparing US to JS says
JavaScript is class-free
. Clearly, the author of that page doesn't know any ES6 syntax.
-
@raceprouk said in The death of Ruby?:
On that note, the wiki page comparing US to JS says
JavaScript is class-free
. Clearly, the author of that page doesn't know any ES6 syntax.Um, actually, it's still techincally correct, since, AFAIK, ES6 syntax is just that - syntactic sugar, its still prototype-based behind the scenes.
Filed under: Can I piss even more people off with this sentence?, Yes, that grammar error is in there to piss you off
-
@onyx said in The death of Ruby?:
Yes, that grammar error is in there to piss you off
It's not a grammar error, it's an orthographic error. (╯ᶷ☖ᶷ)╯︵ ┻━┻
Edit: ah, you meant the missing aprostrophy.
-
-
@jaloopa said in The death of Ruby?:
@zecc said in The death of Ruby?:
(╯ᶷ☖ᶷ)╯︵ ┻━┻
┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)
Be nice to tables
That involves not using ActiveRecord. So, death of Ruby is a step toward that goal!
Filed under: Re-railing in progress, please hold...
-
┬─┬ ︵ ɔɔǝz
-
@onyx said in The death of Ruby?:
But... I was told .NET is dying!
They are both spiraling down the drain together.
As I've already argued half a year ago.
-
@cartman82 said in The death of Ruby?:
@onyx said in The death of Ruby?:
But... I was told .NET is dying!
They are both spiraling down the drain together.
As I've already argued half a year ago.
Darnit, should've made that emojicon a ...
-
@onyx said in The death of Ruby?:
Darnit, should've made that emojicon a ...
I would argue more, but the NET devs here are already under enough pressure, watching their entire professional lifestyle collapsing into dust and everything. I don't want to add to their misery.
-
@cartman82 said in The death of Ruby?:
They are both spiraling down the drain together.
As I've already argued half a year ago.
Oh, the one where pretty much everyone then proceeded to utterly dismantle your argument?
-
@atazhaia Doesn't Unity run on .NET? Then why not take advantage of it and let people write in any language that has a .NET compiler?
-
@anonymous234 said in The death of Ruby?:
@atazhaia Doesn't Unity run on .NET? Then why not take advantage of it and let people write in any language that has a .NET compiler?
You mean like IronRuby?
-
@masonwheeler said in The death of Ruby?:
Oh, the one where pretty much everyone then proceeded to utterly dismantle your argument?
Shrooms that make you believe NET has a future are also known to make your argument sound more plausible.
-
-
@dkf said in The death of Ruby?:
@jbert said in The death of Ruby?:
You mean like IronRuby?
Last release date: March 13, 2011…
So you're saying it's stable!
-
@atazhaia Even if Unity promised it, I wouldn't rely on them to actually do it. How many years have they been promising to upgrade their embedded C# to .NET 4.x?
-
@blakeyrat said in The death of Ruby?:
How many years have they been promising to upgrade their embedded C# to .NET 4.x?
This is included in Unity 2017 (released last month). It's still something you have to turn on manually but it seems to be holding up.
-
@jbert Yes, but also all the other ones.
-
@coldandtired So what does that make it, 6 years? 7?
Point is, I wouldn't hold my breath for anything Unity announces they're working on.
-
"The death of Ruby" makes me think of @Lorne-Kates.
-
@zecc like he finds out their names...
-
Game engine? Desktop environment? VMWare feature?
Don't forget about the Dependency Injection library
-
Ruby died the day I stopped using it. Jan 17, 2008.
-
@cartman82 said in The death of Ruby?:
@onyx said in The death of Ruby?:
But... I was told .NET is dying!
They are both spiraling down the drain together.
As I've already argued half a year ago.
Yay, @cartman82's being batshit crazy again!
-
@cartman82 said in The death of Ruby?:
@onyx said in The death of Ruby?:
Darnit, should've made that emojicon a ...
I would argue more, but the NET devs here are already under enough pressure, watching their entire professional lifestyle collapsing into dust and everything. I don't want to add to their misery.
And again. Score! :D
-
Any time someone talks about the death of Ruby, the language that thought that concatenating a string known to be UTF-8 and another string known to be ISO8859-15 should be done by just sticking the bytes together and asserting that the result is UTF-8, any time someone talks about that, I think “Please! It can't come soon enough!”
Ruby has the dubious distinction of being a language from which I suspect it is only really possible to learn negative lessons: if Ruby does something one way, do it a different one in your own software/library/language and you'll not regret it.
-
@dkf said in The death of Ruby?:
Any time someone talks about the death of Ruby, the language that thought that concatenating a string known to be UTF-8 and another string known to be ISO8859-15 should be done by just sticking the bytes together and asserting that the result is UTF-8, any time someone talks about that, I think “Please! It can't come soon enough!”
Wait… Is @dkf admitting that Python has done something right?
Quick, call the Doctor, I think he's been abducted by aliens!
-
@asdf said in The death of Ruby?:
Wait… Is @dkf admitting that Python has done something right?
From what I've seen, Python's OK provided you never write a class or a module, or use more than one thread. OK, there isn't very much you can do without writing classes and modules ;) but the rest of the language isn't too fuckwitted from a user perspective. Classes though, they have some really nasty internal interactions as bits and pieces of the language war over exactly what happens when, and modules are actually over-flexible resulting in people doing shit in lots of different ways, all to great confusion. Most of the truly horrible bits of Python stem from a slew of subtle problems in classes and modules.
Threading is a bit different. The issue there is that Guido got multithreading wrong way back in the day and now Python's stuck with the consequences by a huge preponderance of user code despite it being well known that it is broken. Fixing it will break millions of scripts in ways that are intensely painful, yet the breakage isn't a required part of the language (as IronPython and Jython both demonstrate). I'm reminded a bit of how PHP has had a lot of trouble over the years because of early blunders.
For all that I don't like Python in many ways, it's still one hell of a lot better than Ruby. Ruby makes monkey-patching of core types into a stand-out star-billed feature. (There are reasonable reasons for doing that sort of thing occasionally, but it really shouldn't be something that an ordinary programmer does on a regular basis as the effects are really subtle and hard to maintain.) Ruby is also the only language I know that requires a 32GB dedicated server to power a fairly simple website with only a few MB of non-BLOB data and a mere handful of users, most of whom avoid the site because it is so freaking slow.
-
It's growing on Tiobe index
And stable in pypl
-
@captain said in The death of Ruby?:
Ruby died the day I stopped using it. Jan 17, 2008.
I've got a fever and the only prescription is more monads!
-
@boomzilla There's a Cowbell monad now?
-
data Cowbell a = NeedsMoreCowbell | HazCowbell a cowbell :: b -> (a -> b) -> Cowbell a -> b cowbell n f NeedsMoreCowbell = n cowbell n f (HazCowbell x) = f x instance Functor Cowbell where fmap f NeedsMoreCowbell = NeedsMoreCowbell fmap f (HazCowbell x) = HazCowbell (f x) instance Monad Cowbell where (HazCowbell x) >>= k = k x NeedsMoreCowbell >>= k = NeedsMoreCowbell return = HazCowbell fail s = NeedsMoreCowbell
-
@antiquarian I don't understand that but I get the feeling that there comes a point where one doesn't need more cowbell. That can't be right.
-
@boomzilla said in The death of Ruby?:
@antiquarian I don't understand that but I get the feeling that there comes a point where one doesn't need more cowbell. That can't be right.
I was lazy and just copypasted the
Maybe
monad.
-
@antiquarian So you're saying that maybe we don't need more cowbell?
-
@antiquarian said in The death of Ruby?:
data Cowbell a = NeedsMoreCowbell | HazCowbell a cowbell :: b -> (a -> b) -> Cowbell a -> b cowbell n f NeedsMoreCowbell = n cowbell n f (HazCowbell x) = f x instance Functor Cowbell where fmap f NeedsMoreCowbell = NeedsMoreCowbell fmap f (HazCowbell x) = HazCowbell (f x) instance Monad Cowbell where (HazCowbell x) >>= k = k x NeedsMoreCowbell >>= k = NeedsMoreCowbell return = HazCowbell fail s = NeedsMoreCowbell
You do have to give the Ruby creators credit - it takes a lot of planning and effort to design a language that's even more unreadable than Perl.
-
@kt_ said in The death of Ruby?:
@cartman82 said in The death of Ruby?:
@onyx said in The death of Ruby?:
But... I was told .NET is dying!
They are both spiraling down the drain together.
As I've already argued half a year ago.
Yay, @cartman82's being batshit crazy again!
Imagine you spend 8 hours a day coding in JavaScript, hunting down minor typos half an hour into a debugging session, arranging a series of precompilers, linters and minifiers to do something besides spamming your console with errors and desperately trying to learn the latest framework's terminology in the two weeks before it becomes obsolete.
What else can you do once you get home but get on your favorite internet forum and mock all those well-paid .NET developers with stable jobs and mature toolchains about how one day - one day! - they'll share the same misery you do?
It's like getting drunk and beating your wife, only you do that to software developers so that you can be sure the society will not stand up for them.
-
@maciejasjmj Winter is coming...
-
@dragnslcr said in The death of Ruby?:
@antiquarian said in The death of Ruby?:
data Cowbell a = NeedsMoreCowbell | HazCowbell a cowbell :: b -> (a -> b) -> Cowbell a -> b cowbell n f NeedsMoreCowbell = n cowbell n f (HazCowbell x) = f x instance Functor Cowbell where fmap f NeedsMoreCowbell = NeedsMoreCowbell fmap f (HazCowbell x) = HazCowbell (f x) instance Monad Cowbell where (HazCowbell x) >>= k = k x NeedsMoreCowbell >>= k = NeedsMoreCowbell return = HazCowbell fail s = NeedsMoreCowbell
You do have to give the Ruby creators credit - it takes a lot of planning and effort to design a language that's even more unreadable than Perl.
Umm... you do know that's not Ruby, don't you? It's Haskell.
Ruby is actually fairly easy to read. (It has a multitude of s in other areas, but readability is pretty decent, as these things go.)
-
@zecc said in The death of Ruby?:
It's not a grammar error, it's an orthographic error. (╯ᶷ☖ᶷ)╯︵ ┻━┻
Edit: ah, you meant the missing aprostrophy.(╯ᶷ☖ᶷ)╯︵ ┻━┻
-
@masonwheeler said in The death of Ruby?:
@dragnslcr said in The death of Ruby?:
@antiquarian said in The death of Ruby?:
data Cowbell a = NeedsMoreCowbell | HazCowbell a cowbell :: b -> (a -> b) -> Cowbell a -> b cowbell n f NeedsMoreCowbell = n cowbell n f (HazCowbell x) = f x instance Functor Cowbell where fmap f NeedsMoreCowbell = NeedsMoreCowbell fmap f (HazCowbell x) = HazCowbell (f x) instance Monad Cowbell where (HazCowbell x) >>= k = k x NeedsMoreCowbell >>= k = NeedsMoreCowbell return = HazCowbell fail s = NeedsMoreCowbell
You do have to give the Ruby creators credit - it takes a lot of planning and effort to design a language that's even more unreadable than Perl.
Umm... you do know that's not Ruby, don't you? It's Haskell.
Oh.
Ruby is actually fairly easy to read. (It has a multitude of s in other areas, but readability is pretty decent, as these things go.)
No, Ruby is still about as unreadable as Perl. Last time I looked at it, they still insisted on using symbols for most of the syntax.
-
@dragnslcr said in The death of Ruby?:
Last time I looked at it, they still insisted on using symbols for most of the syntax.
Do you mean symbols as Ruby defines them? If so, I don't really agree - but that may well be because I do about 85-90% of all my programming in Ruby, so maybe I don't notice anymore. If you meant some other kind of symbols, then explain, please.
IMHO Ruby is rather more readable than Perl once you grasp enough of the basic syntax (which is to say that things like blocks will be rather opaque to someone not familiar with the concept), but that may again be because I can hardly program in Perl.
As for Ruby dying - I figure it's different based on where you are. Ruby was big in Japan way before Rails - which are what made it gain any traction in the US and Europe. Now that Rails has twisted off in a weird direction it might indeed be on the road to losing popularity, which will make it look like Ruby itself is "dying". FWIW, around here (central Europe) both pure Ruby and Rails are still popular, but Rails is showing signs of decline in popularity.
-
@maciejasjmj said in The death of Ruby?:
@kt_ said in The death of Ruby?:
@cartman82 said in The death of Ruby?:
@onyx said in The death of Ruby?:
But... I was told .NET is dying!
They are both spiraling down the drain together.
As I've already argued half a year ago.
Yay, @cartman82's being batshit crazy again!
Imagine you spend 8 hours a day coding in JavaScript, hunting down minor typos half an hour into a debugging session, arranging a series of precompilers, linters and minifiers to do something besides spamming your console with errors and desperately trying to learn the latest framework's terminology in the two weeks before it becomes obsolete.
What else can you do once you get home but get on your favorite internet forum and mock all those well-paid .NET developers with stable jobs and mature toolchains about how one day - one day! - they'll share the same misery you do?
It's like getting drunk and beating your wife, only you do that to software developers so that you can be sure the society will not stand up for them.
Except if you do .net sooner or later you get pushed into web development. That's why I jumped ship to C, because nobody in their right mind does web development with C.
Then I spend a few years doing web development with C, because FML, that's why.
-
@wharrgarbl said in The death of Ruby?:
Except if you do .net sooner or later you get pushed into web development.
Only if you allow it: there's plenty of .NET used outside the Web.
-
@wharrgarbl said in The death of Ruby?:
if you do .net sooner or later you get pushed into web development
That's what happened to me. I try to keep to working with codebehind as much as possible because I can't design an interface and fuck Javascript