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

The Missing Piece in AI Coding: Automated Context Discovery

I recently switched tasks from writing the ColBERT Live! library and related benchmarking tools to authoring BM25 search for Cassandra . I was able to implement the former almost entirely with "coding in English" via Aider . That is: I gave the LLM tasks, in English, and it generated diffs for me that Aider applied to my source files. This made me easily 5x more productive vs writing code by hand, even with AI autocomplete like Copilot. It felt amazing! (Take a minute to check out this short thread on a real-life session with Aider , if you've never tried it.) Coming back to Cassandra, by contrast, felt like swimming through molasses. Doing everything by hand is tedious when you know that an LLM could do it faster if you could just structure the problem correctly for it. It felt like writing assembly without a compiler -- a useful skill in narrow situations, but mostly not a good use of human intelligence today. The key difference in these two sce...
Post a Comment
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 week of Windows Subsystem for Linux

I first experimented with WSL2 as a daily development environment two years ago. Things were still pretty rough around the edges, especially with JetBrains' IDEs, and I ended up buying a dedicated Linux workstation so I wouldn't have to deal with the pain.  Unfortunately, the Linux box developed a heat management problem, and simultaneously I found myself needing a beefier GPU than it had for working on multi-vector encoding , so I decided to give WSL2 another try. Here's some of the highlights and lowlights. TLDR, it's working well enough that I'm probably going to continue using it as my primary development machine going forward. The Good NVIDIA CUDA drivers just work. I was blown away that I ran conda install cuda -c nvidia and it worked the first try. No farting around with Linux kernel header versions or arcane errors from nvidia-smi. It just worked, including with PyTorch. JetBrains products work a lot better now in remote development mod...
Post a Comment
Read more