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/
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/
Yes I read and understood it. :-D
I probably shouldn’t reply since apparently you’re still working on learning how to copy text…
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.
That quote says absolutely nothing about Matz or DHH making Ruby bad.
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.