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/
I agree that Python’s handling of 3rd-party dependencies is cumbersome, especially for scenarios that would have otherwise been trivial. However… The use-cases I’m referring to in my context have no need for anything outside the standard library. I’m literally talking about using Python as a shell script alternative, more or less.
…Which is admittedly the lowest of bars. It’s hard to be less ergonomic or more arcane than Shell script - unless one resorts to the Dark Arts of Perl or APL.
This is the first time I’ve heard of Deno, but I’m not sure that having to install a 110Mb JS VM + runtime is more convenient in my context than simply using Python which is already guaranteed to available on any system I use and does all I need. Is Typescript a better language than Python? Perhaps. Does that matter for my use-cases? No, not really. I definitely wouldn’t use Rust - or any other compiled language - for scripting. While I haven’t had time to look at Zig as much as I’d like, I do adore the language so far - I can definitely see myself transitioning from C++ to Zig, and likely will to the extent I’m able. Still don’t see it as a Python replacement though (again, for my use-cases - I’m emphatically not arguing that there isn’t plenty of projects implemented in Python that could have benefited from being written in Zig or Rust instead).
If you have any other suggestions for viable alternatives, I’m open to suggestions though.