Ruby Future Or?

Ruby
21

On 05/16/2011 11:20 PM, Daniel B. wrote:

On May 15, 1:25 pm, Stu[email protected] wrote:

Python and Ruby are pretty much in the same boat. Python won’t be the
Ruby killer.
My prediction? Javascript eventually kills the other dynamic languages
in the web development arena. Why use two languages when you can use
one?
Sorry, but this argument just does NOT count (for me). It’s leads to the
question: Why develop something new?
The is no language, which can to everything to the utmost satisfaction
of every programmer. This will NOT happen.
In contrast every language has areas, where is works fine and others
which are tricky to handle with. Even if
you stick to web-development (which is itself a large area), JS is not
… let’s say that well suited from a
programmers point of view. I’d love to see a beautifully designed
language like Ruby doing client side
web-programming. The other thing is taste: I personally don’t like the
idea of giving space such a meaning in
a programming language. That’s one of the reasons, I dislike about
Python.
Or in other words: Did we really need a dynamic language after PERL? The
answer is YES, isn’t it?

cheers
ralf

22

I’d love to see a beautifully designed language like Ruby doing client
side

web-programming.

Well, not exactly what you want, but take a look at
http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/

Regards,
Rimantas

23

The other thing is taste: I personally don’t like the
idea of giving space such a meaning in
a programming language. That’s one of the reasons,
I dislike about Python.

Do you really think all those cascading ‘ends’ in Ruby (that you can
never get right nor locate the missing ‘end’) are better? For me, the
'end’s are more irritating than perl’s semi-colons. I’ll gladly take
python’s newlines over the 'end’s and the semi-colons.

24

Hrm, peach or nectarine, peach or nectarine …

Sooo hard to choose which tasty nutritious stone fruit to eat. But once
I do, the eaters of that OTHER tasty stone fruit are gonna hear about
it, that’s for darn tootin’.

25

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 08:49:08AM +0900, 7stud – wrote:

The other thing is taste: I personally don’t like the
idea of giving space such a meaning in
a programming language. That’s one of the reasons,
I dislike about Python.

Do you really think all those cascading ‘ends’ in Ruby (that you can
never get right nor locate the missing ‘end’) are better?

I have no problem locating a missing “end”. In fact, the "end"s make it
easier to track nesting, at least for me. So, speaking only for myself,
yeah . . . I do think they’re “better”.

26

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

I have no problem locating a missing “end”. In fact, the "end"s make it
easier to track nesting, at least for me. So, speaking only for myself,
yeah . . . I do think they’re “better”.

'sides, when keeping methods short and sweet, you don’t lose track of
the end of your method. Losing track of the end is a code smell, I’d
say.

Excuse the puns, which were only partially unintentional.

–
Phillip G.

Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I’ve moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I’ve played and passed through,
Who’ll remember my song or my face.

27

I think that kind of canonical generalization isn’t strictly true,
especially if you work with lambdas or heavy algorithms. I’m a huge
fan of abstraction, especially in Ruby and Lisp, but to say that code
should never be nested this much is (by my standards) not a good
generalization.

28

If you have more than two or three ends, your code sucks. It’s a
feature,
not a bug.

29

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:49 PM, 7stud – [email protected]
wrote:

The other thing is taste: I personally don’t like the
idea of giving space such a meaning in
a programming language. That’s one of the reasons,
I dislike about Python.

Do you really think all those cascading ‘ends’ in Ruby (that you can
never get right nor locate the missing ‘end’) are better?

I’ve never had much problem with getting the “ends” right in Ruby, but
I tend to frame blocks before filling them in. But, sure, sometimes I
would rather not have to deal with ending blocks.

In practice, I’ve found Ruby easier to refactor, incorporate from an
outside source, and work with in general than Python – though Python
is slightly easier to write in the first place. So, yeah, between
Ruby’s explicit delimiters and Python’s significant whitespace, I find
Ruby’s structure to work better. But its largely a subjective
difference of what works best for different people.

(Oddly, while I haven’t done as much with Haskell as with Python, the
significant whitespace in Haskell hasn’t bothered me as much as
Python’s; I don’t know if its that I just haven’t done as much with
Haskell or if there is something in the interaction with the rest of
the syntax with the whitespace sensitivity that is less disruptive in
Haskell.)

But all these languages are pleasant to work with, for their various
quirks. I don’t know about anyone else who has complained about
Python’s whitespace sensitivity, but when I mention my dislike of it,
its not by way of saying Python sucks, just one feature of the
language that occasionally causes frustration that isn’t present in
some other languages . Python also has positive features that aren’t
mirrored in other languages, including some that are tightly linked to
significant whitespace (not needing to explicitly end blocks is a
convenience.)

30

  1. Yes. For some jobs, the Ruby is what is important, not the Rails.

  2. I don’t know because I have not been job hunting for quite a while,
    but I
    am confident that there are. Those jobs are certainly a minority, but
    they
    are not a fantasy.

Kirk H.
Engine Y.

31

На 17.5.2011 г. 01:10, Zach D. написа:

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Robert J.[email protected] wrote:
I found it interesting to see Walter Bright (creator of D) comment in an
interview that he thought Ruby was the language to watch (see the very last
question in the interview):

http://www.bitwisemag.com/copy/programming/d/interview/d_programming_language.html

Hello,

This is my first post here, I am C firmware programmer and and touched
Ruby because installed Redmine for project management. So I took a look
at
Ruby, saw its syntax and other properties.

Now, I caught myself that I sometimes write meta-code of my algorithms
in Ruby
in comments, where the actual C code is not clear yet. Hence I think
that Ruby is
nearer to the human languages than C and may be in help when describing
algorithms.

I think that Ruby has its future and domain of usage. It will not
prevail the other
languages like Python, Perl, JavaScript but will live. Just another nice
language.
I loved it.

–

Regards,

Ivan Cenov
OKTO-7 Co., Botevgrad, Bulgaria
[email protected], [email protected]
GSM: +359 888 76 10 80
phone: +359 723 6 61 20, +359 723 6 61 61
fax: +359 723 6 62 62

32

He-he, I guess Rails for Ruby is the same as JEE is for Java :slight_smile:

And maybe in future it may be suppressed by JavaScript and similar stuff
(like CoffeeScript) but definitely not with Python.

33

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:28:32PM +0900, Kirk H. wrote:

  1. Yes. For some jobs, the Ruby is what is important, not the Rails.

Awesome. That’s one!

  1. I don’t know because I have not been job hunting for quite a while, but I
    am confident that there are. Those jobs are certainly a minority, but they
    are not a fantasy.

I haven’t seen any – but then, I haven’t been watching EngineYard job
postings.

34

Sure ruby has a future.

It is now better than 10 years ago and people used it 10 years ago too.

I also hope that matz continues to stay active, his vision still guides
ruby forward even though there are now other ruby-implementations out
there (Go, Rubinius, go!)

I myself do not use rails. I used Ruby before Rails existed too.

Rails got a lot of attraction and hype to ruby, but it is a completely
separate community. I am not part of it in any way and to me it makes no
difference whatsoever whether rails exists or not. I don’t mean this in
a bad way either, it just does not matter to me at all. :slight_smile:

Python became more popular than Ruby but I think this had to do with the
fact that Ruby really had CRAPPY documentation for a long time. Without
the Pickaxe, I am still wondering whether ruby could have been used
outside Japan at all …

I myself don’t really see Python as an enemy to Ruby. Both ruby and
python are very similar in many things, though there are plenty of
differences too, mostly in the philosophy. I prefer ruby’s philosophy (I
started using ruby after trying it out, having read an interview with
matz - great interview by the way!)

What I am seeing since some months though is that Javascript is becoming
insanely popular. That is not only to jquery alone …

I think ultimately Javascript is becoming so popular because of the
importance of WWW.

I myself really don’t like Javascript too much. I think it is a mistake
to use so many different languages … the WWW has become so much more
complex than 10 years ago… :frowning:

Javascript has an unfair advantage too. Every browser defaults to it…

I’d rather use Ruby and show Javascript the middle finger.

Or even better, I would like to use Ruby EVERYWHERE for me here when I
can - I want to target my browser without Javascript… or I dream of a
VM where any language is possible. And I would stick to Ruby.

Unfortunately that is just wishful thinking.

Javascript is there to stay …