Forum: Ruby The Programmer Hierarchy

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Trans (Guest)
on 2006-12-27 03:35
(Received via mailing list)
unknown (Guest)
on 2006-12-27 04:23
(Received via mailing list)
Quoting T. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:

>
>   http://www.hermann-uwe.de/files/images/programmer_...
>
>
>

The only problem with that chart is that there should be *three*
languages in
the top row -- Lisp, Assembler and Forth. :)
Jeremy McAnally (Guest)
on 2006-12-27 05:55
(Received via mailing list)
I hope they know that Ruby isn't a web language...
David V. (Guest)
on 2006-12-27 12:26
(Received via mailing list)
Jeremy McAnally wrote:
> I hope they know that Ruby isn't a web language...
>

It's probably a reference to the huge number of Java and PHP expats Ruby
has attracted recently. (Though that seems to have shifted to GUI
programmers and Windows automation people recently. The former might
have something to do with the Ajax hype receding, the latter seems to be
a stable base of relatively nontechnical users.)

David V.
Jason M. (Guest)
on 2006-12-27 15:02
(Received via mailing list)
On 12/27/06, David V. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> It's probably a reference to the huge number of Java and PHP expats Ruby
> has attracted recently. (Though that seems to have shifted to GUI
> programmers and Windows automation people recently. The former might
> have something to do with the Ajax hype receding, the latter seems to be
> a stable base of relatively nontechnical users.)
>
> David V.


Or maybe the latter has to do with a bunch of people who understand some
basic programming concepts, who just don't want to learn the syntax crap
that comes with java.  After 2 hours troubleshooting an error in a java
program that turned out to be me typing double in one place and Double
in
another, I gave up on that language.  The language shouldn't get in the
way
of programming - which is why I got into Ruby.  After reading the
preface of
the pickaxe I was sold on Ruby.  The phrase "creating solutions for your
users, not for the compiler" in the second edition of the pickaxe says
it
more eloquently than I ever could.

The simple fact is that someone might be very technical in several areas
of
computers and have little to no experience with programming other than
figuring out where the bugs and bad logic are (I'm thinking about the
penetration testers out there without much higher level programming
experience).  What I use Ruby for is GUI programming and Windows
automation... but calling me a relatively nontechnical user rankles me.
I'm
the guy that does the troubleshooting on a programmer's PC when they
can't
get it to work.  Right now I'm trying to automate my job - it's a
science,
it's not magic.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Trans meant for it to be a joke.  Laugh, it was
funny.

J
Trans (Guest)
on 2006-12-27 15:44
(Received via mailing list)
Jason M. wrote:

> Anyway, I'm pretty sure Trans meant for it to be a joke.  Laugh, it was
> funny.

Indeed! I should have put a big smiley on my post :D

Just to be clear I didn't create it --just thought it was funny enough
to share. Rather, it was found deep down in the blog server of one "Uwe
Hermann". And I imagine the web lanaguage reference is really just a
joke about the huge impact Rails has had on "popularizing" Ruby.

Enjoy,
T.
unknown (Guest)
on 2006-12-27 15:52
(Received via mailing list)
Hi --

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006, Jeremy McAnally wrote:

> On 12/26/06, Trans <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>   http://www.hermann-uwe.de/files/images/programmer_...
>>
> I hope they know that Ruby isn't a web language...

I'd say the evidence is that they don't.

All I can say is that I saw the Ruby/Rails confusion coming from a
mile away -- shades of "PERL/CGI" -- and I wrote a book to help people
get it right.  I'd like to think it's helping, though clearly there
are still consciousnesses left to raise.


David
David V. (Guest)
on 2006-12-28 02:04
(Received via mailing list)
Jason M. wrote a touchy rant.

Huh?

My, my, aren't we extrapolating into extremes a bit?

David V.
Giles B. (Guest)
on 2006-12-28 07:19
(Received via mailing list)
> > I hope they know that Ruby isn't a web language...
>
> I'd say the evidence is that they don't.
>
> All I can say is that I saw the Ruby/Rails confusion coming from a
> mile away -- shades of "PERL/CGI" -- and I wrote a book to help people
> get it right.  I'd like to think it's helping, though clearly there
> are still consciousnesses left to raise.

I have to say, that's a very worthy cause, I just hope it isn't so
noble as to be tragically doomed, which I sometimes think it might
indeed be. There's the possibility of a very mixed blessing on the
horizon for Ruby programmers -- a huge quantity of bad Rails code
written by well-intentioned people who figured "hey, this programming
stuff is easier than I thought." On the one hand, writing Ruby for a
living might be a lot easier to do in the future, but it might not be
as fun as it is now.
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2006-12-28 21:23
(Received via mailing list)
Giles B. wrote:
> There's the possibility of a very mixed blessing on the
> horizon for Ruby programmers -- a huge quantity of bad Rails code
> written by well-intentioned people who figured "hey, this programming
> stuff is easier than I thought."
You mean like the mounds of bad FORTRAN and COBOL that are about to
become a national disgrace because the people who wrote and maintain
them are retiring and the young folks don't want to learn those "old
fogey" languages? :)

Speaking of which, I have actually seen a FORTRAN code recently (though
I refuse to embarrass the maintainer by revealing its name) that uses
three-branch IF statements!

IF (I) 100, 200, 300

IIRC gfortran accepts it with a warning.


> On the one hand, writing Ruby for a
> living might be a lot easier to do in the future, but it might not be
> as fun as it is now.
>


--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
Matt R. (Guest)
on 2007-01-06 20:19
(Received via mailing list)
On 27-Dec-06, at 8:51 AM, removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

>
>

I wouldn't worry about that too much.  Perl was mainly a "web
language" in it's early stages as well.  Any language can be a "web
language", but the ones that are easy to use are particularly
effective as web languages.  I would take it as a compliment.  :)

Matt
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-01-06 20:30
(Received via mailing list)
Hi --

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Matt R. wrote:

>>> I hope they know that Ruby isn't a web language...
>>
>> I'd say the evidence is that they don't.
>>
>>
>
> I wouldn't worry about that too much.  Perl was mainly a "web language" in
> it's early stages as well.  Any language can be a "web language", but the
> ones that are easy to use are particularly effective as web languages.  I
> would take it as a compliment.  :)

It's not a compliment or an insult; it's just a mistake.  I'd be happy
to participate in the author's education, if he's interested in
learning about Ruby and its community.  He seems to have gotten hold
of the wrong end of the stick entirely.


David
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2007-01-06 20:30
(Received via mailing list)
I thought it was pretty funny (after I found a looking glass ;).
Nice 1 Tom

Cheers
Robert


--
"The real romance is out ahead and yet to come. The computer revolution
hasn't started yet. Don't be misled by the enormous flow of money into
bad
defacto standards for unsophisticated buyers using poor adaptations of
incomplete ideas."

- Alan Kay
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.