|
|
|
|
|
by bonn1
4121 days ago
|
|
Many folks in this thread are expressing that it's the OP's fault and not Ruby's. The OP made his post as objective as possible, politely written and nobody is loosing his face, neither Ruby as a language nor the Ruby community. But people are still resentful and fire back. I believe it's not a discussion about Ruby anymore, its strengths, its weaknesses and wether Ruby still fits in 2015—no it's the fear of people that their core competence might be less worth in future. That all the time and energy they invested all the years into one language might be not a good investment anymore. The fear that better tech will replace their tech and that they have to start at zero again. I know I am going to be heavily downvoted for this post. Before you downvote just think a second again why you'll downvote me. |
|
The point is that articles about rebuilding entire systems in different languages conflate two things — an architecture change, and a language changes.
This often results in the sort of appraisal you see here – 'Go is better for us than Ruby, because we completely rebuilt a system and it's now better'. That's got some value, but it's frustrating to see it used as something of an absolute metric regarding the suitability of a language when it's conflated by the far more important architectural changes.
So I think your view that there are a bunch of developers who are afraid of the future is a little shallow; rather I suspect there are a bunch of developers who saw exactly the same sort of thing happen when Ruby was becoming popular, and realise that extracting helpful data when there's an ongoing fad ('we're jumping from X to Go') is rather difficult.