this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2025
1 points (51.1% liked)
Programming
23863 readers
288 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody said that.
Nobody said that.
I don't think Ruby's performance has significantly changed since then, so yes. Still bad.
Nobody said that.
Nobody said that.
More straw men than a scarecrow convention.
did you even read it?
Yes I read and understood it. :-D
I probably shouldn't reply since apparently you're still working on learning how to copy text...
Yes indeed, if you actually read his text, Ruby isn't bad because Python/JS are good. It's bad because it has failed to add static type checking. Python and JS are simply examples of languages that didn't fail in the same way.
That quote says absolutely nothing about Matz or DHH making Ruby bad.
No, the text says that Ruby persists despite its badness due to inertia and nostalgia.
How can you accuse me of not reading it when you're pasting literal quotes that contradict you? Insane.