Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

isurg

  1. Home
  2. Programming
  3. Ruby Is Not a Serious Programming Language

Ruby Is Not a Serious Programming Language

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Programming
programming
2 Posts 2 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • brikox@lemmy.zipB This user is from outside of this forum
    brikox@lemmy.zipB This user is from outside of this forum
    brikox@lemmy.zip
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    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/

    Link Preview Image
    Ruby Is Not a Serious Programming Language

    Ruby survives on affection, not utility. Let's move on.

    favicon

    WIRED (www.wired.com)

    P 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • brikox@lemmy.zipB brikox@lemmy.zip

      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/

      Link Preview Image
      Ruby Is Not a Serious Programming Language

      Ruby survives on affection, not utility. Let's move on.

      favicon

      WIRED (www.wired.com)

      P This user is from outside of this forum
      P This user is from outside of this forum
      partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Ruby was the most approachable language I found and sheparded me from my limits of bash scripting and Windows batch file scripting into the next level.

      The author derides Ruby's easy readability and syntax because it has issues scaling to large enterprise applications. I don't disagree there is a performance ceiling, but how many hundreds of thousands of Ruby projects never rose to that level of need? The author is also forgetting that Ruby had Rubygems for easy modular functional additions years before Python eventually got pip.

      I don't write in Ruby anymore, and Python has evolved to be much more approachable than it was when Ruby was in its prime, however if someone came to me today saying they wanted the easier programming language to learn that could build full applications on Linux, OSX, Windows, and the web, I'd still point them to Ruby with the caveat that it would have limits and they would be better served by Python in the long run.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      Reply
      • Reply as topic
      Log in to reply
      • Oldest to Newest
      • Newest to Oldest
      • Most Votes


      • Login

      • Don't have an account? Register

      • Login or register to search.
      • First post
        Last post
      0
      • Categories
      • Recent
      • Tags
      • Popular
      • World
      • Users
      • Groups