For many programmers, Ruby has long been the language of choice for beginners and pros alike. It's often credited with making programming more accessible and enjoyable. Those who learned Ruby early on speak of its elegance with a sense of gratitude and indebtedness.
However, it was not until my fourth job that I found myself working with Ruby. By then, I had heard enough praise about its beauty and expressiveness that I was eager to experience it firsthand. My first impressions were underwhelming.
To understand why, let's look at how programming languages are generally categorized: static-typed systems like C++ or Java are like Legos – pieces only interlock with others of the same shape and size, making certain mistakes physically impossible. Dynamic typing systems like Ruby, Python, or JavaScript are more flexible but can also lead to errors when building complex structures.
Ruby is dynamically typed, which means its solutions for avoiding common pitfalls haven't kept pace with other languages that have developed more sophisticated tools to make them behave responsibly.
In contrast, Python and JavaScript – both of which are dynamically typed – have evolved powerful mechanisms to mitigate their tendency to produce errors. This hasn’t been the case for Ruby, making it far too conducive to "footguns," or features that all too easily lead to self-inflicted damage.
The performance profile of Ruby consistently ranks near the bottom among major languages. Twitter's infamous "fail whale" – a static image displaying when its service was down – can be seen as a symptom of Ruby’s limitations.
As newer technologies emerged, including Scala, Python carved out a niche in scientific computing and AI, while JavaScript dominated the web. And yet, Ruby has managed to cling on by virtue of its symbiotic relationship with Rails, the web framework that enabled its widespread adoption and keeps it relevant to this day.
For those who first learned Ruby, however, things are different. The language is still a comfort object for many, with legacy codebases providing a sense of security and loyalty among developers who have come to rely on it. Yet, nostalgia for Ruby can only go so far – its performance issues, lack of robust tools, and relatively poor positioning in the modern programming landscape mean that it will likely struggle to stay relevant.
While the allure of Ruby's pretty name and elegant syntax remains, it’s clear that this is a language that has been left behind.
However, it was not until my fourth job that I found myself working with Ruby. By then, I had heard enough praise about its beauty and expressiveness that I was eager to experience it firsthand. My first impressions were underwhelming.
To understand why, let's look at how programming languages are generally categorized: static-typed systems like C++ or Java are like Legos – pieces only interlock with others of the same shape and size, making certain mistakes physically impossible. Dynamic typing systems like Ruby, Python, or JavaScript are more flexible but can also lead to errors when building complex structures.
Ruby is dynamically typed, which means its solutions for avoiding common pitfalls haven't kept pace with other languages that have developed more sophisticated tools to make them behave responsibly.
In contrast, Python and JavaScript – both of which are dynamically typed – have evolved powerful mechanisms to mitigate their tendency to produce errors. This hasn’t been the case for Ruby, making it far too conducive to "footguns," or features that all too easily lead to self-inflicted damage.
The performance profile of Ruby consistently ranks near the bottom among major languages. Twitter's infamous "fail whale" – a static image displaying when its service was down – can be seen as a symptom of Ruby’s limitations.
As newer technologies emerged, including Scala, Python carved out a niche in scientific computing and AI, while JavaScript dominated the web. And yet, Ruby has managed to cling on by virtue of its symbiotic relationship with Rails, the web framework that enabled its widespread adoption and keeps it relevant to this day.
For those who first learned Ruby, however, things are different. The language is still a comfort object for many, with legacy codebases providing a sense of security and loyalty among developers who have come to rely on it. Yet, nostalgia for Ruby can only go so far – its performance issues, lack of robust tools, and relatively poor positioning in the modern programming landscape mean that it will likely struggle to stay relevant.
While the allure of Ruby's pretty name and elegant syntax remains, it’s clear that this is a language that has been left behind.
! I know some ppl love it for its simplicity and whatnot, but performance? no thanks 
it's always gonna be laggin' behind the big dogs like python or scala 
I get why rails is still popular tho, that thing has been around forever 
but for those of us who are actually tryin to build somethin' cool, ruby just can't keep up 
. Its performance issues are super concerning tho 
. Like, yeah, it was a great language for learning and all, but you gotta be realistic about its limitations 
.
. It's like they've been ahead of the curve all along 
... it's like a security blanket for devs who wanna stick with what they know.
. The language is still beautiful and elegant, but you can't deny that it's time to move on 
. Maybe we'll see some improvements down the line? 
But until then, it's just a nostalgic relic of the past 
. It makes sense why Python & JavaScript outpaced it in their respective domains - they've got some solid error-checking mechanisms in place 
. And yeah, it's not all sunshine and rainbows for Ruby devs who learned on the job... gotta be tough having to deal with those 'footguns' 
. Still, I guess legacy codebases are comfy, but progress don't wait for nostalgia 
, like film SLRs, and they're super passionate about them. I mean, have you ever seen those beautiful lens designs? Anyway, what's really cool about these cameras is how they still use mechanical switches for most functions, which is actually really elegant. It's not just about the code; sometimes it's about the hardware too. Speaking of which, I heard there's a new boutique hotel in town that has rooms designed to look like old computers 
...
but its performance problems are legit 
- yeah it worked great in the past, but now it's just not keeping up 
. And don't even get me started on those "footguns" 
, but if you're new to programming, might wanna look elsewhere 
but for me personally, I kinda lost interest after a while... my first impression was similar too 
the performance part did put a damper on it, especially when compared to other langs like Python or Java that seem more robust 