tomlin

You don't understand the core offering.

They are saying it's made in rust, so they are probably trying to counter concerns.

I'm a Nintendo die hard fan boy, I don't care about speed. I learned how to "code" in ColdFusion. I am all for the underdog POV.

We're talking about performance because of the context, which is – there aren't the jobs to support the language's continued growth and dedication. We're talking about speed because there needs to be a defining reason to continue using a language and develop in an ecosystem that isn't moving at the growth of other communities.

If Nintendo Switch had 4 games, and they all looked like dog piss - asking why would I bother wasting time with Switch is a valid opinion.

There's also this insect-minded logic of only being a "front end developer" or "back end developer", and that mindset is furthered by languages that don't bother speaking the language of the web. If I learn javascript, I can be both - pretty much on day 1. If I learn Ruby and Javascript, great. How easy is that to do for a junior developer just getting out of school? Not widely.

It doesn't answer the question of why you would choose Ruby. Honestly, you all sound like you got a Sega Genesis for Christmas, while everyone else got a SNES. You can tell other kids on the playground that Genesis has better graphics, but the spec sheets don't lie.

You're trying to make it seem like it's a wash, because "scripted" but it's not. Node.js outperforms Ruby in every department. And it's based on one of the slowest scripting languages of all time. Ruby is a dead language in many countries.

In Canada, you would have to travel the country to find a Ruby job. And if you don't think in American-centric terms, that is meaningful.

Most of your comment is about what you think I think, and not a lot about metrics, data or examples where Ruby performs beyond my interpretation. I think that says a lot right there.

Python is somewhat pleasure. Ruby might as well be sandscript as far as I'm concerned. The use of pipes is gross, uncoordinated and lacking direction.

You're literally the exact person I'm talking about. No serious application developer who's interested in speed is working in Ruby. This isn't my opinion. I don't care personally, it's just a fact if you care about reality. When Netflix announces that they use Ruby because it performs faster than Node.js, I'll change my opinion, because my opinion is based on facts and not feelings. I didn't make Ruby, so whether it does well or fails isn't personally important to me. If Ruby was the fastest interpreter, I'd be pro-Ruby but it absolutely isn't and pretending it is is depressing and shows you are making political or selfish decisions, not practical ones.

I'm so glad that you said this and weren't downvoted into the ground. Honestly, Ruby needs to die. It performs like a go cart in a Formula 1 race. I'm actually just exhausted watching smart people tell me this is a language and toolchain worth dedicating brain cells to.

But the instrument for measuring doesn’t change. That’s what makes it dependable, predictable and something to measure against. You can’t measure against a moving target.

Does a tape measure change?

Can IQ be considered a scientific measurement, when a coffee or a bad sleep can affect the outcome? What do people here think?

The word used was "open", and you wouldn't be able to force a company to open itself to intellectual theft at the hands of a foreign government. You're reducing a complex legal/rights policy into "wats the problem just do it guys" mentality. You can't even get rights to index something niche, like the Ontario Opera archive catalogue without running into several unions and trade rights representatives. To think that everyone from Google to Netflix could just do this is hilarious.

This is a reddit, not HN.

How would a Canadian government force an American company to be more open?

Undeniable?

Facebook, Instagram, etc. are not "open", so the argument doesn't work.

On the other hand, less people arguing over news articles may be what the world needs.

Anyone else ask themselves why the signup process requires a phone number, despite signing up with a third party auth provider that already had my phone number? There is no reason to collect this data.

Today a website doesn’t even load without JavaScript. So, there’s that.

I don’t know Russian. Your point doesn’t line up with the topic at all. I know Ruby. I still think it’s unreadable. Can you try next time?

  I feel incredibly sorry for the poor kids you teach. They will be suffering aftereffects for the rest of their lives.

I feel bad that your account hasn’t been flagged for your behaviour on here. For someone who thinks they understand Ruby so well, you certainly haven’t taken any time to understand the rules. Personal attacks? Really? You just showed your cards. Weak arguments are followed with weak ad hominem.

It’s not just me, no one is teaching Ruby to kids because it’s not a good language for readability. Take it up with all of the teachers who see it just as I do.

You might as well have leaned on the keyboard, it wouldn’t look much different. This is not readable code.

Parentheses as pipes is what you do when you’ve backed yourself into a corner.

Ruby has decided (for some reason?) to use two ways to declare.

Function(param, param)

and

{ |param, param| }

why? What is a good reason for this?

It would be an anti pattern in design, not sure why Ruby gets a special hall pass.

Ruby maps are so ugly.

  .map { |key_value|
  key_value.partition('=')[-1] }

Reading this literally makes me sick to my stomach. Language design is much more important than language popularity, although it will be popularity that wins. (Yay downvotes for pointing out things everyone can see - highschool dynamics)

> well, that's a deeper problem and they should be fired, not babysat.

How that mentality works out in the real world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

Hey, please don't take my comment as an attack. It's a lot of hard work, but I have to give my perspective - which also involves a lot of hard work in that I have been pushing marketers back for years, for everything from unnecessary personal information capture to portraying negative images of young women. Unleashed, marketers don't do well for us or the world.

If anything, this is a marketing trojan horse. I think we should do more pushing back and less trying to idolize this behaviour. There was a time where developers made things for themselves or other people, not just marketers. As a developer, I don’t think marketers add value or better workflows. Generally, marketers are driven by intangible goals that rarely produce positive results. I’ll take my deserved downvotes.

The popularity of this just means your marketing bosses will use it to ram this concept down your throat. One of the saving graces against marketers is them not having this sort of direct line to customers. That gate is an important one.

I’m just giving you my experience. You don’t have to like it.

> "where you can get a whole bunch of likes by saying “microservices bad amirite?!”

Okay.

I implore you to watch the incessant, and regular posts on HN claiming that microservices are the future for everyone and everything, and then be there to tell them you've seen this before. My guess is you won't be as lead-footed in those cases. The idea that if you write an article or an opinion, and have to do an hour of research to see if its been covered before is a high level of micromanagement that you just aren't ever going to see, I'm sorry. It's super unrealistic to expect that.

He didn't label it as "news", it was an opinion. Regardless if it was said before, who cares? He's not allowed to speak on his experiences because it offends your MO?

I think the opinion he had was justified by his own experiences, which mimic my own - and many of those working at smaller agencies/dev shops (you know, the vast majority of the workforce). It was nice to read something not entirely in the perspective of a Silicon Valley developer drunk on his own ignorance of the rest of the world.

That wasn't the argument that was being made. Do you have commentary on the content of the article, or just that you don't like that he had a non-party line opinion?