Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Ruby Dying?

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the netcraft-confirms-it dept.

Ruby 400

New submitter John Moses writes "I have been working with node.js a lot lately, and have been discussing with co-workers if node.js is taking steam away from Ruby at all. I think the popularity of the language is an important talking point when selecting a language and framework for a new project. A graph on the release date of gems over time could help determine an answer. The front page of RubyGems only shows data on the most popular, but I am really interested in seeing recent activity. My theory is that if developers' contributions to different gems is slowing down, then so is the popularity of the language."

cancel ×

400 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Short answer: no (5, Insightful)

gentryx (759438) | about 9 months ago | (#45777689)

Long answer: a better indicator is how many Google queries for the respective languages are issued. And those suggest that Ruby is standing stronger than ever [google.com] . Ruby is more than just Rails. And just because there is yet another web apps framework, it doesn't mean that the other ones automatically lose traction.

Re:Short answer: no (3, Funny)

hjf (703092) | about 9 months ago | (#45777711)

Silly programmer, you're not an "coder"! You don't know what's cool and what's not. Look at that UID. You must be like, 35! Yuck, old people!

Re:Short answer: no (2)

hjf (703092) | about 9 months ago | (#45777719)

Oops... meant "a coder". I was going to put "an app developer" but changed my mind at the last minute...and forgot to fix the "an".

Re:Short answer: no (1)

gentryx (759438) | about 9 months ago | (#45777739)

A case of too much plum pudding?

Re:Short answer: no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778293)

Oops... meant "a coder". I was going to put "an app developer" but changed my mind at the last minute...and forgot to fix the "an".

You should have left your original post alone; the "an", as in: "an hero" would have worked. At least that was my thought, until your follow up with the correction.

Re:Short answer: no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777767)

Look at that UID. You must be like, 35! Yuck, old people!

That would've been more funny if you had a bigger UID....

Re:Short answer: no (-1, Offtopic)

PNutts (199112) | about 9 months ago | (#45777833)

That's what she said.

Re:Short answer: no (5, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 9 months ago | (#45777909)

Look at that UID. You must be like, 35! Yuck, old people!

Careful there, kid. :)

Re:Short answer: no (3, Funny)

hjf (703092) | about 9 months ago | (#45777931)

Eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwww dirty old man!

Re:Short answer: no (0)

geekd (14774) | about 9 months ago | (#45778033)

" Look at that UID. You must be like, 35! Yuck, old people!"

I must be ancient.

Finally got it (0)

gentryx (759438) | about 9 months ago | (#45778057)

You're close. Both ways. Funny. 32, not 35. ^^

Re:Finally got it (0)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 9 months ago | (#45778357)

Now I'm just curious about age-to-UID mapping - I'm just about to hit 36.

Re:Short answer: no (2)

Tchaik (21417) | about 9 months ago | (#45777753)

Nice graph. You'll have better luck with 'javascript' than 'java script' though.

Re:Short answer: no (3, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 9 months ago | (#45777781)

How about picking the best tool for the job, rather than holding a popularity contest? Too old-fashioned?

It's good to avoid going too far off into the weeds, lest you find it impossible to hire someone to support code in some pet language, but that's not the concern here. Of the universe of languages, both mainstream and niche languages commonly used in your niche, pick the one that makes it easiest to develop and support the features in front of you.

It's pretty obvious someone is playing "what language will look best on my resume" here, and if playing that game is obvious to me from this distance, it will be glaring to hiring managers. Few people are looking for a history of "trendy" (you'd be amazed how fast "trendy" becomes "sad" in tech), while a history of doing the dirty, unpopular, work that keeps development teams productive is always welcome, long after the tech stack fades into obsolescence.

Re:Short answer: no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777823)

Well thanks for your resume, we will take a look back when you have the lang we use..

Re:Short answer: no (3)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 9 months ago | (#45778009)

How about picking the best tool for the job, rather than holding a popularity contest? Too old-fashioned?

It's good to avoid going too far off into the weeds, lest you find it impossible to hire someone to support code in some pet language, but that's not the concern here. Of the universe of languages, both mainstream and niche languages commonly used in your niche, pick the one that makes it easiest to develop and support the features in front of you.

It's pretty obvious someone is playing "what language will look best on my resume" here, and if playing that game is obvious to me from this distance, it will be glaring to hiring managers. Few people are looking for a history of "trendy" (you'd be amazed how fast "trendy" becomes "sad" in tech), while a history of doing the dirty, unpopular, work that keeps development teams productive is always welcome, long after the tech stack fades into obsolescence.

All these pseudo-languages look bad to me when I review resume's. If you want to impress, learn C, C++, Assembler, or a few other real languages. Ruby, C$, VB, Python etc... those can be picked up on the fly if needed.

Re:Short answer: no (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 9 months ago | (#45778043)

Learn C. Almost everything else draws from it. Learn C, and you're half-way to learning anything else.

Re:Short answer: no (1)

cj_n_sf (781833) | about 9 months ago | (#45778363)

Right on! Had to comment so I could see if my uid qualifies me as an old geezer. Yep!

Re:Short answer: no (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777787)

Interesting that even though PHP's interest has declined over time (according to the same chart [google.com] ), it's still more popular than Python & Ruby combined.

Re:Short answer: no (1)

countach74 (2484150) | about 9 months ago | (#45778063)

I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with Wordpress. :)

Re:Short answer: no (4, Informative)

Lisias (447563) | about 9 months ago | (#45777795)

Nice try (intentionally spelling "java script" is not cute, dude!).

Here, I fixed it to you [google.com] .

Not a surprise, anyway.

Re:Short answer: no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777821)

the problem with google trends is that you can make them tell whatever you'd like:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F06ff5%2C%20%2Fm%2F0bbxf89&cmpt=q

Re:Short answer: no (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777837)

And how did you control for people searching for "Ruby" that had nothing to do with the programming language?

Re:Short answer: no (1)

mothlos (832302) | about 9 months ago | (#45777901)

As a big fan of Ruby generally, I hate to take this side, but Ruby is definitely no longer for the 'cool' kids and the community has been shrinking a bit for a while now.

Your Google query chart is a bit wonky as it captures all sorts of oddities. Here [google.com] is a revised chart which only looks at Computer + Electronics related searches using Google's categories for everything except Python, which I can't seem to figure out how to get it to appear.

Re:Short answer: no (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 9 months ago | (#45777929)

I don't think necessarily that's the right metric for figuring out whether or not a language is dead.

It's very much a fuzzy, qualitative problem.

My best metric is, "Can you still get a job using this language? and is the work interesting?"

Wrong. We in industry are very upset with Ruby. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777991)

Those of us in industry are very fed up with Ruby and Ruby on Rails, but I think it's much more because of their communities than it is because of the technologies themselves.

I don't know if there's a polite way of saying this, but far too many of the people involved with those communities are utter disasters who in turn create utterly disastrous software systems. For every Ruby success story we may hear about, there are probably 10 or 20 total disasters that aren't as widely known. The disasters are usually because of the people involved, not the technologies.

Those of us who've been in the industry for many years, if not decades, and have had to engage in hiring over the past 8 or so years will know what I'm talking about. We have to deal with candidates who have no formal education at all in computer science, software engineering, or a related field. They don't even have the equivalent of a single four-month community college programming course. If we're lucky, they've read a single book about web development using Ruby on Rails. (This is ignoring their other serious flaws, such as the complete inability to dress or act with even a minimal level of professionalism; I've interviewed some of these hipsters while they're wearing t-shirts with dumbass sayings on them, and fedora hats.)

Now, having been in the industry for years, I can see right through these people. When they get past HR, they don't get past me. But I can't be everywhere. I've worked with a few organizations lately where the people making the hiring or purchasing decisions in the past didn't know better, and now these organizations have ended up with their very own Ruby on Rails disasters.

The Ruby community may not realize it, but they're getting a very bad reputation in the industry. It's nearly as bad as the reputation that the PHP and JavaScript communities have now. But this is exactly what's expected to happen when dealing with programmers who do shitty work in the first place, or who think it's perfectly normal to write unmaintainable code, or who think it's acceptable to job hop 3 or 4 times a year, or who can't work in a professional manner, or who deliver one under-performing and costly software disaster after another.

At more and more places, "Ruby" and "Ruby on Rails" are becoming synonyms for "costly disaster". That's not the kind of reputation that a programming language or a web framework can have if it wants to survive and flourish past the short term. Maybe the people in these communities don't realize it, but they're losing trust at an alarming pace.

Re: Wrong. We in industry are very upset with Ruby (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778133)

The fedora is pretty hipsterish, but I couldn't care less it any of my applicants come in with a T-shirt. Some of the most childish, shitty, unprofessional people I know wear suits everywhere.

Professionalism does matter. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778311)

He probably doesn't expect, or even want, them to wear suits. What some of these Ruby hipsters wear doesn't even approach "casual", let alone "business casual" or anything remotely considered "formal". It's better classified as "freak" or "social outcast".

Too many of them dress, groom and act in a way that makes them come off as total fools. I mean, do I really want to hire somebody who wears thick-rimmed glasses without lenses? Do I want to hire somebody who spends hours styling his mustache, but ignores the rest of his personal hygiene? Do I want to hire somebody who turns every discussion into how his preferred beer or music is trendier or more obscure than some other brand of beer or type of music? Do I want to hire somebody who refuses to take off his fedora, even when in the presence of customers? Do I want to hire somebody who wears clothes in what's likely an intentional effort to stand out like a sore thumb? Do I want to hire somebody who tries to incorporate "irony" into everything? No.

I'm not sure about you, but I don't think it's too much to expect a software developer to wear clean clothing without offensive messages or an overtly distracting appearance while on the job. I don't think it's too much to expect a software developer to shower and brush his teeth at least once on workdays. I don't think it's too much to expect a software developer to be presentable to clients who may expect even the smallest bit of professionalism.

What they wear or how they act on their own time is their business. But if they're getting involved with a workplace of some sort, they sure as hell ought to be at least trying to act like adults, not just oversized children stuck with a high-school mindset and mentality, while on the job.

Re:Short answer: no (1)

buddyglass (925859) | about 9 months ago | (#45778039)

In the domain of language in which Ruby plays, I'd say Python has by far the brightest future.

Some graphs from google trends: ruby programming [google.com] , python programming [google.com] and php programming [google.com] . Which one of these things is not like the others? (Hint: Python).

TIOBE data [tiobe.com] , questionable as it is.

Search for jobs at LinkedIn:

Ruby: 112 results
Python: 5,151 results
PHP: 3,046 results

And the "programmer perception" survey [berkeley.edu] Berkeley did a while back (that I think was covered at Slashdot). Check out the results for the question "This language is likely to be around for a very long time".

Re:Short answer: no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778233)

Using your metric, you can say Perl's future outshines them all.

Re:Short answer: no (1)

Zarf (5735) | about 9 months ago | (#45778041)

Ruby is standing stronger than ever [google.com] .

By this metric Java [google.com] is still kicking everyone's butts. Also... *all* programming languages are "dying".

I've been around the block enough times to know that if you want to survive as a programmer you had better damn well learn to program. And not in just one language, you need to know a survey of language types. Ruby is just one type in the same category as Python and Javascript. If you really want to survive 20 years as a programmer (like I did) you need to branch out more.

Now, you kids get off my lawn.

Re:Short answer: no (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 9 months ago | (#45778195)

are you sure those people aren't searching for jewels or JFK assassin killers?

Re: Short answer: no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778235)

Queries: ruby ruby ruby. LOL That's a song name!

This is god. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777695)

You are all fucking bastards who need to get raped by horses.

Re:This is god. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777763)

You are all fucking bastards who need to get raped by horses.

Seems legit.

Let's Hope! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777707)

I sure hope so. Ruby is just too much overhead for not enough deliverables. Ugh. Ruby is do "ugh" that it makes me want to use PHP.

Re:Let's Hope! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777805)

Overhead? It's slightly faster than Perl and Python.

Netcraft Confirms It (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777737)

It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: Ruby is dying.

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Ruby community when IDC confirmed that Ruby market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all languages. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Ruby has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Ruby is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent programmers survey.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict Ruby's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Ruby faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Ruby because Ruby is dying. Things are looking very bad for Ruby. As many of us are already aware, Ruby continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

Re:Netcraft Confirms It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777801)

Wattup Guido!

Dying? It's already dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777745)

No one in my department will touch it anymore, despite it being the choice just a few years ago.

Node.js? Dude, that was so last year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777749)

The cool kids are using Go for their server apps and infrastructure projects.

Re:Node.js? Dude, that was so last year (2)

Lisias (447563) | about 9 months ago | (#45777761)

The cool kids are using Go for their server apps and infrastructure projects.

While their parents are taking real jobs and paying the bills!

Re:Node.js? Dude, that was so last year (1)

PNutts (199112) | about 9 months ago | (#45777951)

The cool kids are using Go for their server apps and infrastructure projects.

While their parents are taking real jobs and paying the bills!

Sadly, those kids are hired and keep chasing the latest and greatest (including jobs) and leave their one trick pony app behind that was written in "the next big thing" language with no knowledge transfer or support.

oblig (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777757)

Netcraft confirms it (http://everything2.com/title/BSD+is+dying)

-I'm just saying

ruby is obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777765)

Making a scripting language be mandatory OO is just annoying. Do your developers really suck so bad they can't write a couple scripts without it devolving into spaghetti? Both Python and Ruby feel like reactions to Perl that went way too far, Python with its stupid whitespace as syntax bullshit and Ruby with its mandatory OO but if I had to choose give me Python any day.

Re:ruby is obnoxious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777785)

Mandatory OO? Wow a comment from an AC that never actually use Python or Ruby.

Re:ruby is obnoxious (1)

countach74 (2484150) | about 9 months ago | (#45778053)

Is he wrong though? There are no functions in Ruby, are there? Everything has to exist within a class, does it not? Clearly, I am not a Ruby programmer; enlighten me if I'm wrong, please.

Re:ruby is obnoxious (3, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | about 9 months ago | (#45778279)

For quick and dirty scripts, you can just define your methods and variables and not deal with classes. They're added to the main object, much like javascript globals and functions are added to the window object.

Re:ruby is obnoxious (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 9 months ago | (#45778283)

No you do not need to place a function in a class.

irb
2.0.0-p353 :001 > def add5(x)
2.0.0-p353 :002?> x + 5;
2.0.0-p353 :003 > end
=> nil
2.0.0-p353 :004 > add5(10)
=> 15
2.0.0-p353 :005 > add5(12)
=> 17

yes. (1, Funny)

StealthHunter (597677) | about 9 months ago | (#45777777)

yes.

not dying in DevOps (4, Insightful)

thule (9041) | about 9 months ago | (#45777789)

Chef and Puppet are huge in DevOps. It seems Ruby has found its niche.

Re: not dying in DevOps (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778081)

We need something better than bash scripting, and sadly PERL, python, ruby are it.
I wish they were more tailored for system scripting tasks than app development though. PERL... Can go die in a fire though, I have a lot invested in it, but the syntax is bad for casual users.

Contributions also slow down with maturity (2)

stox (131684) | about 9 months ago | (#45777793)

Now people can spend much more time actually writing applications than writing supporting infrastructure.

Re:Contributions also slow down with maturity (2)

Xtifr (1323) | about 9 months ago | (#45778065)

I think that's as bad of an oversimplification as the original thesis. But it certainly raises an important issue the submitter seems to be ignoring. For a highly modularized system, a lack of contributions to particular modules may well simply indicate that those modules are mature and don't need a lot of additional contributions any more. To really get a feel for the health of the overall ecosystem, you have to take a broader view.

But Node.JS IS WEBSCALE (5, Funny)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 9 months ago | (#45777799)

Node.js invents threading/processes and is webscale [youtube.com] .

The best part is once you start coding it you will find yourself with a neat trimmed beard in designer plaid in a hip coffee shop listening to music not even out yet with 2 georgous ladies by your side giggling and being turned on by your most awesome code that is on your laptop screen.

Re:But Node.JS IS WEBSCALE (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 9 months ago | (#45777987)

with 2 georgous ladies

Does that mean two "ladies" both named "george" who are presumed to be into cross dressing? No, thanks.

Re:But Node.JS IS WEBSCALE (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 9 months ago | (#45778215)

But it's web scale.

The event/callback/state machine model is a pain to program in, but at least you don't have race conditions on shared data. Also, now that most Javascript programmers are aware that the language supports closures, callbacks aren't so hard to code properly.

The classic problem with threads is that the usual locking primitives (which are almost always variants on the POSIX primitives) are treated as an OS object, rather than part of the language. For most languages, the language has no idea of which locks lock what data. Ada gets this right, but the Ada rendezvous is clunky. Even Go gets this wrong. (See the endless discussions of "is this a race condition?" in the Go newsgroup.) So race conditions are common in threaded software, and a cause of random failures.

Practical problems with threads include crappy implementations of lock primitives that make a system call even in the non-blocking case, the cost of fencing on superscalar CPUs, and poor scheduler coordination between context switching and message passing.

Most of those issues are way too theoretical for the average web programmer. It's better that they not have to think about them. There's a lot of web code to be written and we don't want to waste the good people on it.

Re:But Node.JS IS WEBSCALE (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 9 months ago | (#45778287)

But it's web scale.

The event/callback/state machine model is a pain to program in, but at least you don't have race conditions on shared data. Also, now that most Javascript programmers are aware that the language supports closures, callbacks aren't so hard to code properly.

The classic problem with threads is that the usual locking primitives (which are almost always variants on the POSIX primitives) are treated as an OS object, rather than part of the language. For most languages, the language has no idea of which locks lock what data. Ada gets this right, but the Ada rendezvous is clunky. Even Go gets this wrong. (See the endless discussions of "is this a race condition?" in the Go newsgroup.) So race conditions are common in threaded software, and a cause of random failures.

Practical problems with threads include crappy implementations of lock primitives that make a system call even in the non-blocking case, the cost of fencing on superscalar CPUs, and poor scheduler coordination between context switching and message passing.

Most of those issues are way too theoretical for the average web programmer. It's better that they not have to think about them. There's a lot of web code to be written and we don't want to waste the good people on it.

But in essence you are re-inventing the operating system hence the joke. Like Java and C# wouldn't it be better to have an api or framework do this for you rather than you trying to outdo the OS in this regard? Java is overly engineered and frustrating but everything scales up easily for non SMP experts in the swing library.

I have not programmed in Ruby yet but I was under the impression that has apis that can do this so the programmer does not have to write his or her own event timer events and other non sense.

Nope (title capitalization sucks, btw) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777807)

No. Next question, is Slashdot dying?

Re:Nope (title capitalization sucks, btw) (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777861)

No. Next question, is Slashdot dying?

Slashdot will be dead as soon as the new "design" comes out.

Indeed, this redesign will destroy Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778107)

Your comment is absolutely correct.

I don't think that those running Slashdot really appreciate how many people are going to be driven away once the beta is no longer optional, and the classic site is totally gone.

The only reason I'm still around is because I can use the classic site. Once that's gone, I'll be gone, too. And I'm just one long-time user among many others who are in the same boat. I've seen enough other comments expressing similar sentiment about the beta site, but they always seem to get modded down. Huh, imagine that!

The beta design is completely unusable. It's damn near impossible to even read the comment threads, never mind actually participate in them in any meaningful way. Every single thing about it is worse than the previous design. It's difficult to believe, but there really are no redeeming qualities at all. It's an all-around worse experience.

If this new design is a response to dropping traffic numbers, I'm afraid it'll do nothing but accelerate the process beyond anyone's wildest dreams. We've seen what happened to Digg after they made this kind of a redesign mistake. That site never recovered, and likely never will.

As a long-time Slashdot reader and commenter, I sincerely hope that those running Slashdot come to their senses soon, cut their losses, and scrap this entire redesign before it ruins Slashdot. This beta site has proven again and again that it is surely not the way forward. It is nothing but the way to destroy Slashdot, I'm afraid to say.

It is... (1)

mha (1305) | about 9 months ago | (#45777863)

(i.e. Slashdot is) - as far as content and quality are concerned. Look at my UID, I've known the site since the beginning. These days I don't really know why I still come here, reddit has MUCH better comment quality on average (not a joke - this includes that the really good comments are easy to spot while the garbage quickly disappears). Slashdot is living off of past glory completely. Back then the moderation system was state the greatest asset - today it's still the same while everyone else continued to develop. I'm not bitter at all - as I said, reddit is pretty good so I know what I read most of the time...

Re:It is... (2)

RDW (41497) | about 9 months ago | (#45777913)

You're the guy who told me to get off his lawn when I first joined, aren't you?

Re:It is... (1)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | about 9 months ago | (#45777955)

Couldn't agree more. You can have a conversation on reddit too, not so easy on slashdot.

Re:It is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778155)

Thanks for the tip. I wasn't a goose stepper so I lost my mod points and now this place has just become a flamefeast for the most part. It's time to move on.

Re:Nope (title capitalization sucks, btw) (1)

PNutts (199112) | about 9 months ago | (#45777885)

No. Next question, is Slashdot dying?

Slashdot was reported as dying [discovery.com] back in 2011.

Ruby will never die. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777809)

It will live on in our hearts and in our memories.

Dying? No. (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 9 months ago | (#45777819)

Ruby as a language is progressing well and Ruby 2.1 will be out soon.

Ruby gems is still active.

Just because it's not getting all the buzz from the young kids doesn't mean it's dying.

Re:Dying? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777853)

That's the problem with these scripting language flavor of the months, everyone thinks their pet language is going to be THE language going forward and only once they turn 30 do they realized they wasted their young years on a piece of shit fad language instead of just using C++ like a man.

Re:Dying? No. (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 9 months ago | (#45777877)

Just because it's not getting all the buzz from the young kids doesn't mean it's dying.

Ruby is not C. Ruby was born amidst a slew of toy languages, getting all the buzz from the young kids. Once that buzz died down, and the kids moved on to newer fad languages, and without a generation of seasoned programmers extolling its virtues, Ruby died.

Ruby isn't dying. It's already dead.

Re:Dying? No. (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 9 months ago | (#45777915)

I view Ruby as Perl evolved. There is a need for scripting languages and both Ruby and Python do a good job filling that niche.

Re:Dying? No. (2)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 9 months ago | (#45778005)

See, that's the thing. Perl isn't dead. Perl is still used extensively in system administration and for quick prototyping and proof-of-concept work. Python is still alive and well in the sciences as a supplement to MatLab and other similar tools. Perl and Python have both just about vanished from the web, though, as other server-side scripting tools have become more prevalent. This same tide that displaced Perl and Python from their traditional stomping grounds has also displaced Ruby. However, Perl and Python have found other niches where they thrive. Can the same really be said of Ruby?

Re:Dying? No. (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 9 months ago | (#45778377)

Perl is still used in sysadmin, however Ruby is gaining ground at Perl's expense in this area.

Python is being used in science by the new post docs, but fortran, matlab, and IDL still reign supreme. (I like python because it's way cheaper than IDL or Matlab). Perl actually has a larger share of science use than Python. Python is replacing Perl as a glue language for science with Fortran and C still do the heavy lifting.

Ruby is also being used in science. Ruby + R when plotting is required, otherwise Ruby (like Python) is a glue language with Fortran and C do the computationally intensive work.

Ruby, Python and even Perl are still being used to power the web.

not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777827)

I thought I saw a job posting that asked for experience with Ruby and/or Ruby on rails. I didn't know that companies use Ruby.

Popularity contest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777843)

I think the popularity of the language is an important talking point when selecting a language and framework for a new project

Well, there's your problem. Unless your goal is to start a new project which is doomed to become a legacy system based on 'some popular language of the day' that nobody want's to touch when the shiny wears off.

Next time try selecting a language and framework based on a solid history of doing the job not a popularity contest.

Node.js (4, Interesting)

thammoud (193905) | about 9 months ago | (#45777851)

We had to swallow a dagger and use JavaScript on the client as it is the only game in town. Please someone, enlighten me, why would I use this horrific language on the server side? What exactly am I missing? What is so great about Node.js that warrants having to deal with JS.

Re:Node.js (1, Interesting)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 9 months ago | (#45777887)

While you and I, as programmers, have an innate hatred for JavaScript, you can't overlook the hoards of "web developers" whose only experience writing code entails JavaScript.

What's great about Node.js is that it doesn't warrant hiring actual programmers.

Re:Node.js (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778031)

God I hate conceited "programmers" like you. There are tens of thousands "programmers", not just "developers", who love and use the Javascript language. Just because you personally don't like JS doesn't mean you can just dismiss the language and everyone who *programs* in it as "developers".

He's not "conceited". He's absolutely correct! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778183)

This isn't about anyone's "personal feelings" about JavaScript.

This is about the hard, objective facts. This is about basic software engineering principles. This is about a minimal level of professionalism.

JavaScript is objectively a bad language. I really hope that we don't need to go through the list of problems with it, but maybe we should address at least some of the most serious problems. Its type system is very broken. Its object system is a joke (prototype OO is always inferior to class OO; that's why everyone tries to fake classes using prototypes, and the result is always terrible). Its comparison operators are broken. It doesn't offer sensible modularity. It doesn't offer useful namespacing. Its implementations are generally bad, even the ones receiving much investment and effort from large and well-funded organizations like Google, Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft. Its development tools are a decade or more behind those of Java and C++. It's rife with stupidity like semicolon insertion. It has almost no standard library, and what does exist exhibits complete idiocy in almost every respect.

For crying out loud, the most respected JavaScript book is Crockford's "JavaScript: The Good Parts". Almost the entire book tells you to not use significant features of JavaScript! Only a very broken programming language would have a book like that become so popular and recommended.

Professional software developers can only express disgust when it comes to JavaScript. There's just no way that anyone who cares about doing a good job can seriously consider it anything less that a terrible disaster. JavaScript is indisputably a horrible programming language. It's just not possible to suggest otherwise.

Re:Node.js (0)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 9 months ago | (#45778203)

but we can, come back when you know something else - preferably 2 or 3 other things. Then you'll know how narrow the design of js really is, just like the rest of us. Using it for everything just isn't the best idea.

Re:Node.js (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about 9 months ago | (#45778199)

I assume that when you say "writing code", you mean, "cobbling together cargo cult code snippets invoking jquery/prototype that were harvested from the first Stack Overflow result that Google crapped out." Your version is definitely more concise, though.

Re:Node.js (1)

tibman (623933) | about 9 months ago | (#45778389)

lol, like you don't do that for C#? The language does not make the programmer.

Re:Node.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777889)

It is better than Java on the server side?

Re:Node.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777941)

The answer to your question is hell no. Java is faster and has a large and mature library.

Re: Node.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45777917)

Because designers who have free time to write blogs talk about it a lot and because JS on the server makes front end developers suddenly think they are qualified to make back end architecture contributions because now they know a server side language.

Re:Node.js (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 9 months ago | (#45777921)

Well, for one, you can have the same single-threading benefits you have in the browser, now on the server! Cooperative multitasking like in the old days! It will make you forget what threads were invented for in the first place!

Re:Node.js (3, Interesting)

countach74 (2484150) | about 9 months ago | (#45778019)

JavaScript is rather misunderstood. It does, indeed, have issues--perhaps more than other languages (I'd say certainly more than say, Ruby or Python). But it has merits as well that most people overlook or simply don't know about. It is, for instance, very expressive. Particularly in the server-side programming realm, NodeJS has a few advantages to it that most other languages / frameworks don't (or require more difficulty in implementing), such as:

1. Naturally asynchronous, NodeJS allows vastly more I/O than a similar threaded solution. Need to implement long polling for 2,000 concurrent users? Not a problem.

2. The ability to share libraries and other code effortlessly between server-side and client-side applications.

Some of the down sides to NodeJS are that, well... it uses JavaScript. Seriously, though, it could be worse: it could be PHP. JavaScript really isn't that bad, once you actually learn the language. I hated it until fairly recently because I didn't really understand it. Now that I've spent some time learning its intricacies and quirks, I am much more productive with it. I can even enjoy using it. Would I prefer using Python? Absolutely. But it's really not so bad.

Moving forward though, I think one of the biggest problem with JavaScript in general is that we have far too many people who know just enough JavaScript to be dangerous that trying to establish high community standards will be very, very hard. In fact, one of the reasons I like Python so much is not that Python itself is all that great (it, too, has issues), but rather that there are countless excellent, well maintained, well designed libraries available. The same is simply not true for JavaScript in general.

Re:Node.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778181)

It is, for instance, very expressive.

Expressive as function(function(function(function())), sure.

Re:Node.js (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 9 months ago | (#45778023)

We had to swallow a dagger and use JavaScript on the client as it is the only game in town. Please someone, enlighten me, why would I use this horrific language on the server side? What exactly am I missing? What is so great about Node.js that warrants having to deal with JS.

Because web developers think they invented threading [youtube.com] . They like node.js because they can do block/non block I/O and asynchronize programing and can write something hip called events to manage them with a new technology called a scheduler.

Re:Node.js (1)

Johnny00 (213878) | about 9 months ago | (#45778365)

Because I can use one language, one uniform representation of an object from database (mongo) through the app server, web server , session store and client-side. I can have robust coding and debugging tools thanks to advanced IDEs like WebStorm7. I can leverage a common pool of engineers to do both front-end and back-end work - sure, the front-end types need to cross train with the back-ends and vice versa - but its MUCH more feasible when everyone is speaking a common language.

Re:Node.js (1)

GrunthosThePoet (2658483) | about 9 months ago | (#45778407)

Its all some people know. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail

Obligatory: She's dead, Jim. (4, Funny)

PNutts (199112) | about 9 months ago | (#45777911)

Damit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a developer in a dynamic, reflective, object-oriented, general-purpose programming language that supports multiple programming paradigms, including functional, object oriented, and imperative.

Thank you, Wikipedia.

Short answer: yes. (3, Insightful)

hessian (467078) | about 9 months ago | (#45778027)

Trends always die.

All-purpose languages that adapt over time are better tools to learn.

You learn more in depth, instead of having certain tasks be very easy.

This is similar to the trade off between wizard-based interfaces and actually knowing what you're doing with an operating system.

It was already dead even before it started to live (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778121)

So technically it is not dying.

People who can't actually program (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778141)

Always looking for the magic language which will solve all their problems.

That's why the fads come and go, but the reality is nothing compensates for laziness and an inability to think clearly and coherently.

Masses of effort put into 'frameworks' - which only regurgitate known solutions to known non-problems and once the house has been given a new coat of paint the original problems with the plumbing still remain - and the house painters move on to some other fashionable neighbourhood - leaving that faint whiff of raw sewage in their wake.

Ugh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778153)

Ruby should die, along with Python, Java, C# and every other toy language out there, dumbing down the field of computer science. Maybe then the flood of morons getting degrees in the computer field will stop. If you think I'm wrong, congrats. You'll one of the morons, and you don't even know it.

We don't need you, Ruby! (2, Insightful)

bmimatt (1021295) | about 9 months ago | (#45778187)

Dear Ruby: Please leave Chef behind and go and die in some dark corner. Take rails with you. Thanks.

Wait. You're implying that Ruby is still a thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778207)

I thought the Ruby fad peaked in 2005 and then went under the radar by 2006.
Now you're telling me that people still use it? WAT?

Should I bother learning Ruby? What advantages does it have over its competitors? (Note: I don't consider "on rails" to be an advantage.)

Does the Tin Man have a sheet metal cock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45778359)

Netcraft confirms it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?