Ruby survives on affection, not utility. Let's move on.
  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    302·
    4 days ago

    it’s hilariously depressing how most people hate on Ruby because of the shit Rails does.

    also, Sheon Han(the author), is a corpo-shilling hack that writes predominantly fluff pieces for his silicon valley friends and neighbors.

    don’t believe what he writes because he only gets paid when his opinions garner traffic.

    want to know why Ruby still has a following? same reason why Java is still holding on. Same reason why COBOL and FORTRAN is still going. because it works and people still use it.

    • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
      21·
      3 days ago

      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!

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        31·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
          21·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 days ago

            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?

            • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
              31·
              2 days 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.