[fredoliveira]

> I bet all of them wish they weren't using Ruby.

I'd take that bet. At scale, (and those 3 are the definition of scale) you can mitigate some of the downsides of Ruby (i.e. speed), but you can't recreate the upsides (i.e. developer satisfaction, learning curve, flexibility) elsewhere.

> Go and Typescript seem to have taken its place, which makes sense because they're both much better languages.

Again: depends on the metrics you're considering. I would certainly consider Go much better than ruby on some metrics, but most definitely not all - and importantly, if I put all of it on a scale (and this is where bias comes in), I still give the edge to Ruby over both of those.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

Heh, not the person you were replying to, but I do not find the list of upsides compelling. These products at scale are mature (minus everyone’s list of personal bugs and misfeatures). Who cares how easy it is to pick up the language or developer happiness? A stricter language with more hard guarantees makes it possible to make changes to a big code base without fear.

[fredoliveira]

Fair! And yep, I too wish Ruby was stricter. I just happen to value it slightly less than some of the things I do get with the language.

[dismalaf]

> Who cares how easy it is to pick up the language or developer happiness?

Someone who's building a startup. Time to market and not succumbing to the desire to quit is #1 when you're building from the ground up.

You DGAF about making changes to a large codebase when you have no codebase...

[IshKebab]

Sure but at scale the downsides of Ruby become even more significant - performance is more of an issue at scale, as is the lack of static typing.

I don't think Typescript or Go have a worse developer experience or learning curve than Ruby. You can learn Go in a week. They both have better tooling and higher developer satisfaction (admired/desired) scores than Ruby according to Stackoverflow's survey.