Skip to main content

Ruby isn't going to fracture, and "enterprise" is not synonymous with "static"

I don't follow Ruby development too closely (most of the info on it is still in Japanese, after all), but the US RubyConf was held recently so there's been an unusual number of English posts on Ruby, among them David Pollack's The Impending Ruby Fracture.

David's article seems to consist of these points:

  1. Matz is uninterested in adding static bondage & discipline features to Ruby (true, as far as I know)
  2. "Enterprise" users won't be satisfied without said features (more on this below)
  3. There are a lot of Ruby runtimes out there right now (the most interesting part of the article)
  4. Therefore some Enterprise will co-opt one of the runtimes to fork Ruby and add the B&D features (wtf?)

Summarized this way it looks faintly ridiculous, and yet nobody over on the programming reddit has called this out. Maybe I'm taking excessive liberties with David's article, but I don't think I am.

The possibility of forking is part of what makes open source wonderful. The actual cost of a fork is astronomically high; almost nobody has made it work. For every X.org there are dozens of failures and probably far more where the would-be forkers realized that however bad the situation was, actually forking would be worse.

Now, in the absence of strong leadership, what you can have happening to a language is de facto forking, like what you have with Lisp -- the Common Lisp standard is old, so the various Lisp implementations have gone their separate ways to various degrees and portability between them is pretty dicey. But the Ruby community seems to be pretty content with the job Matz is doing so I don't see this happening.

As a motivation to assume the huge costs of forking, David submits... "interfaces or some other optional typing mechanism?" Excuse me. Even though some intelligent language designers have flirted with ideas along those lines, that's not something that's going to get refugees from Java to rally around your banner for a fork.

I also have to take issue with David's characterization of this as features that "appeal to enterprise customers." While it may be true that B&D languages are currently popular with large corporations, other large corporations recognize the advantages of dynamic languages. Corporations aren't stupid; they're just very conservative, for the most part. In 10 years you'll see more Python and Ruby in the enterprise, just as Java and C# are replacing COBOL and C++ now.

Comments

Anonymous said…
You didn't say what I thought you were going to.

Why would corporations want B&D Ruby anyway? Don't they have Java anyway?
11:10 AM
Jonathan Ellis said…
That is also a good point. :)
12:18 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PyCon Python IDE review

I presented an IDE review at PyCon last Friday. It was basically a re-review of what I thought were the 3 most promising IDEs from the Utah Python User Group IDE review , to which I added SPE, which was by far the most popular of the ones we left out that time. The versions reviewed are: PyDev 1.0.2 SPE 0.8.2.a Komodo 3.5.2 Wing IDE 2.1 beta 1 I'd intended to base my presentation around a comparison of writing a smallish program in each of the IDEs, but the more I tried to make this not suck, the more I realized it was a losing proposition. Instead, I decided to try to focus on the features in each that most set them apart from the others (both positive and negative); this seemed more likely be useful. (I did a new feature matrix for this review, which is included after my comments. The slides I used are also up, at http://utahpython.org/jellis/pycon-ides.pdf , but aren't very useful absent video of the presentation itself. Hence this post.) PyDev PyDev has g...
43 comments
Read more

Why PHP sucks

(July 8 2005) Apparently I got linked by some PHP sites, and while there were a few well-reasoned comments here I mostly just got people who only knew PHP reacting like I told them their firstborn was ugly. These people tended to give variants on one or more themes: All environments have warts, so PHP is no worse than anything else in this respect I can work around PHP's problems, ergo they are not really problems You aren't experienced enough in PHP to judge it yet As to the first, it is true that PHP is not alone in having warts. However, the lack of qualitative difference does not mean that the quantitative difference is insignificant. Similarly, problems can be worked around, but languages/environments designed by people with more foresight and, to put it bluntly, clue, simply don't make the kind of really boneheaded architecture mistakes that you can't help but run into on a daily baisis in PHP. Finally, as I noted in my original introduction, with PHP, ...
30 comments
Read more

A review of 6 Python IDEs

(March 2006: you may also be interested the updated review I did for PyCon -- http://spyced.blogspot.com/2006/02/pycon-python-ide-review.html .) For September's meeting, the Utah Python User Group hosted an IDE shootout. 5 presenters reviewed 6 IDEs: PyDev 0.9.8.1 Eric3 3.7.1 Boa Constructor 0.4.4 BlackAdder 1.1 Komodo 3.1 Wing IDE 2.0.3 (The windows version was tested for all but Eric3, which was tested on Linux. Eric3 is based on Qt, which basically means you can't run it on Windows unless you've shelled out $$$ for a commerical Qt license, since there is no GPL version of Qt for Windows. Yes, there's Qt Free , but that's not exactly production-ready software.) Perhaps the most notable IDEs not included are SPE and DrPython. Alas, nobody had time to review these, but if you're looking for a free IDE perhaps you should include these in your search, because PyDev was the only one of the 3 free ones that we'd consider using. And if you aren...
36 comments
Read more