Ruby survives on affection, not utility. Let's move on.
  • 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.