The Discourse(TM)
AnomalousBit @ AnomalousBit @programming.dev Posts 0Comments 172Joined 2 yr. ago
AnomalousBit @ AnomalousBit @programming.dev
Posts
0
Comments
172
Joined
2 yr. ago
Poster is from… hexbear. Totally adds up!
So… dynamic typing with extra steps 😂
IDK buddy, I don’t really care to write the same method for five different types (or read the 30 methods with different type signatures) when I can do it with one. I see the exact opposite of your statement, in my experience.
Take a deep breath, buddy. We’re on programminghumor
This is not a very “real” response of you. Your response isn’t applicable to all problem domains. Let’s just keep moving the argument to whatever imaginary boundary fits your personal opinion.
Edit: I’m just as big of an idiot for trying to argue with polar’s toothless and subjective “real” claim as I am with you about some pointless server shit. They all use the same packaged software anyways! 😂
That's great you found a distribution that has two different images, one for desktop and and one for server. Does that mean that the desktop version of Ubuntu isn't a "real" operating system as Polar says? Only the server distribution is a "real" operating system? That was the whole crux of the argument to begin with.
So nuanced and articulate
You’re either a troll or too dogmatic
Well, you know, for starters I don't pull up posts about Windows and go through the comments flinging shit like Polar did here. But sure, I'm the troll for telling the troll his way isn't the only way.
They totally are the same thing, it's called a Linux Distribution and you run the same exact software that runs on a server. There's not Debian Desktop and Debian Server, it's just one distribution. It's clear you're just looking to be dismissive without really understanding what you're talking about.
It's not like whatever software you can't do your job without would have to be written twice for Linux Servers and Desktops, it's the same thing. Where again is this distinction you're trying to make?
don’t look at Linux Desktop as a real OS
Linux runs like 90% of the world’s servers. You can’t even get half of Microsoft’s shitty software on AWS. Not to mention that development outside of C# (even that’s a pain in the ass to deploy) on Windows is an exercise in BDSM.
But sure buddy, whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night. I’m sure you’re making 10x more money than the rest of us as a (checks notes) photo and video editor 🙄
Does everything I need without having to pay Adobe every month. Enjoy your subscription!
You’re the one who showed up to bitch and got clobbered with downvotes. Enjoy photo editing on windows, we all know you can’t do that on any other operating system “productively” 😂
Just finished setting up IIS, boss!
This dude must only know how to click on shit
Not in Ruby
It’s valid syntax, it’s part of Ruby. It’s easy to read and familiar across many languages. Write what you want to write, I’m not sure why you feel the need to finger wag.
First time I’ve ever heard someone call a for loop “weird“. They’ve been around for 50 years 😂
The whole point was on readability, not trying to make rubocop be quiet. Sure, .each is great, but I’m not sure about it being shorthand. What did you save? Like 3 characters? I find the for loop more readable unless I’m method chaining.
language is hard to read
for item in array do
puts item[:name]
end
Whew, iterating and working with data in Ruby is so hard. How does anyone read this stuff.
low performance
Ruby is a syntax-sugar-loaded C-wrapper, just like Python and countless other languages that don't compile straight to machine code. If anything other than C and Rust are slow to you, then sure, maybe Ruby isn't a good fit for your project (but Crystal might be).
create your app fast
Damn right, I'm two or three times as productive as I ever was in C#/Razor, Java/Spring or kludging through the countless JS boilerplate-heavy web frameworks.
but then maintaining it is expensive
As with any app that grows into something successful and widely used, technical complexity becomes exponential. I've found once web applications grow to a certain number of models and controllers, the relationships between them start to grow exponentially as well. This means one small change can ripple throughout your application and have unintended consequences where you least expect.
This is not even remotely a unique problem to Ruby. It's happened across every project I've seen that grows beyond 30 models and a couple of dozen controllers, regardless of language. This is why unit testing is so important.
But, specifically you mentioned you can't "onboard new developers easily". I don't see how. I've taken two CS grads straight out of college and had them adding features with tests within a couple of days on Ruby projects. Ruby was designed to be most friendly to humans, not the compiler. If Rails is what is tripping you up, imagine trying to learn a new web framework on top of an even more complicated language than Ruby. I just don't see this argument at all, from my experiences.
Ruby’s creator finding the situation of his language being popular because he’d created it as an experiment
Pretty sure most any language that was created by an individual and not by BigCorp™ is a feat in and of itself. This speaks more widely to a language's capabilities and value if it can reach popularity without corporate backing. This argument seems to imply that because of it's origin, it will always be some kind of experimental toy that was never intended for wide-use.
Meanwhile, Linus Torvalds:
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.
Things have to start somewhere, I guess?
I kindly ask you to be more constructive in your criticism of Ruby. It's a great, powerful language with a low barrier to entry. There's no reason to spread FUD about it.
If this post speaks truth to you, you’ve either drank too much of the Kool-aid or are in your third Junior year at political re-education camp