Why Ruby?

Andrei Alexandrescu SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Sat Dec 11 00:01:35 PST 2010


On 12/10/10 10:16 PM, Christopher Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
> On 12/10/10 19:26, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> http://vimeo.com/17420638
>>
>> A very interesting talk.
>>
>> I used to like D. To write code in a high level while at the same
>> time being very close to the machine, with class invariants, unit
>> tests and many other features seemed very appealing. But I always
>> felt there was something wrong.
>>
>> About a year ago I met Ruby. Now I find languages like Java, C#,
>> Python and D kind of ugly and uncomfortable. Why? Exactly because of
>> what it is said in that video.
>>
>> This is not to start a flame war or trolling, it's just to show you
>> why I changed my mind so much about D, and why I think (IMHO) you
>> should care about naming conventions (like bearophile says), more
>> powerful unittests (and not having unittests integrated into the
>> language but rather being able to build your own test frameworks
>> with ease) and stop caring about being C-syntax friendly. The world
>> doesn't need that many semicolons and parenthesis. :-)
>
> I'm a strange one.  I use Ruby, and D.  (And a couple of others...)  I
> use the tool that feels best for the job, whatever that may be at a
> given time.  Sitting on a disc somewhere are some personal tools I used
> to use when working with D... which are themselves written in Ruby (and
> bash script, but hey).
>
> Then again, I'm the same one who really really likes Ruby on Rails...
> and yet still does most things with PHP.  Why?  Well for one, because
> for plenty of projects, Rails is less an aid and more a hindrance.  (And
> yes, before someone brings it up, I'm well aware of CakePHP... and don't
> care for it much.)
>
> There are times in D when I find myself wishing, momentarily, for the
> loose typing of Ruby... but then there are times in Ruby when I find
> myself wishing for stricter typing.
>
> There are times when I wish D had open classes... but then there are
> times when Ruby's open classes give me headaches.
>
> I could go on like this... but the point was really just: use the right
> tool for the job.  Keep several tools in your toolbox.  There is no "THE
> BEST LANGUAGE OMG!!!"  There is just the best one for a given programmer
> in a given scenario.  Some of the things I've done could probably have
> been better written in, say, Pike!  But I don't really know Pike (very
> well), and don't feel the need to learn it just for those few things
> that might have benefited.
>
> -- Chris N-S

Agreed. One issue with the talk is non-acceptance of "the right tool for 
the job" (the speaker literally says he's tired of that phrase). There 
is one best tool - and that's Ruby. Ahem.


Andrei


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list