[ArtemZ]

From my perspective (DevOps/SRE) Ruby is a horrible platform. It is heavy on resources, it is difficult to run (Unicorn is a pain), maintain, monitor, debug. Many Ruby projects has silently failed (Chef? Puppet?) and the biggest Ruby tool in DevOps world which is Gitlab is incredibly difficult to run on premise and struggles with a ton of issues that I believe are caused by the platform. If I had a choice, I would never work on a ruby project.

[vr46]

As both a Ruby programmer and an DevOps/Infrastructure in the past, I have found Ruby to be a superlative programming environment but just as easy to program in badly as any other. I have never found it harder to run, monitor or debug than any other platform, certainly not harder than building and tuning a Java server platform. Really I think Ruby has been the biggest influence for more brilliant tools and practices in modern development than anything else, even if it doesn’t come close to the performance of a static language.

[chucke]

You're spot on. You can see its influence in a lot of tooling coming after, such as several package managers (from yarn to cargo), java collections syntax, go structural typing, python's gunicorn, JVMs invokedynamic (introduced for jruby originally), among others I can't remember from the top of my head. Several new languages were created, or benefit from the collaboration of ex-rubyists, from elixir to rust to node, which greatly influenced their approach to developer ergonomics. Even if the world would refuse to stop using ruby forever (which will never happen, why would it...), its influence would last for a long time, after which it'd be rediscovered again after the mandatory forgetfulness cycle.

[vr46]

Some great examples there, and look at how many frameworks are “$LANG on Rails”!

Rubyists introduced me to automated provisioning and deployment - Puppet, Chef, Capistrano - as well as concepts like test-driven-development and the genius of metaprogramming, but it’s common to hear javascripters waxing lyrical about TDD while slagging off Ruby.

Ruby is like 12-Bar Blues: people who love rock music don’t always like hearing blues. My favourite story is about seeing Earl Slick and Bernard Fowler performing Bowie, and they struck up a long bluesy intro which caused one of the two older fellas standing next to me at the bar to turn to me and say, “I really don’t like all this blues crap!” only for the “blues crap” to become The Jean Genie two seconds later.

Careful what threads you try and unravel as they may weave your own narrative…

[vidarh]

From my perspective of devops, I've built large hybrid cloud deployments in Ruby (from scratch, including an orchestrator written in Ruby) and would again given the right requirements, as for tooling the ease of writing Ruby outweigh anything else, and for running it it is no different or more complicated than any other container workload. It's a bizarre objection.

[oblio]

> as for tooling the ease of writing Ruby outweigh anything else

Your team mates probably object to that ease of writing, as they did for Perl 20 years ago.

[vidarh]

Whether you write unreadable code or not is not a function of language. This is a lazy attempt at criticism. My preference for Ruby is in part because reading and understanding well written Ruby is a joy compared to every other of the dozens of languages I've used.

[cloudoogie]

And since (un)readable code is not a function of language, you cannot state in your next sentence that reading well written Ruby is joy in comparison with other languages.

[vidarh]

Of course I can. There is no contradiction there. You can write readable code in any language, even assembly, but that does not mean well written code in a language that is also particularly readable won't be more of a joy to read than well written code in a verbose or hard to read language.

[oblio]

The first statement is provably false, empirically, as huge systems are overwhelmingly not written in dynamically typed languages.

Not all languages are created equal and some were designed to be more conducive to maintable code for large teams of developers.

Ruby is not one of these languages.

[vidarh]

> The first statement is provably false, empirically, as huge systems are overwhelmingly not written in dynamically typed languages.

Your conclusion is not supported by the claim you try to support it with.

> Ruby is not one of these languages.

You're free you think so, but you've not provided anything but unsupported conjecture and logically invalid reasoning to support your belief, so rather than convince me, you've provided an additional reason to question your judgement.

[ric2b]

What do you mean by huge systems? Many of the largest web platforms were indeed built with dynamically types languages. And these days Javascript somehow ends up being used for almost everything you can think except an OS kernel.

[lamontcg]

Chef's problems "with ruby" were largely design problems. The whole structure of the run collection and the "two pass parsing" design made it so that users had to almost immediately fully understand how the ruby parser saw ruby code. That wasn't really ruby's fault and there could have been other ways to structure recipes and avoid smacking new users with ruby syntax quite so hard.