In general, the more yak shaving a language allows, the more time will be wasted when using that language. I think Ruby is an extreme example of this. At the end of the day who needs all these possible syntaxes? Nobody, except our egos maybe?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I did go for a number of years and I really appreciated this. Said that, IMO the different approaches lead to different ways of thinking and I enjoy both.
Can’t agree more.
Rubyist here, doing Golang in the last 8 months.
I’m sure that debates in Golang are mainly about the problem itself and not the syntax.
It’s pure pragmatism, no distractions, focus.
It changed my Rubyist perspective forever 😅
If there is a context in which certain syntax feature make the code more readable or more communicative, it's probably worth having it, even if it adds this unnecessary flexibility.
I still haven't come to that age (in the Ruby flexibility, otherwise I am already too far 😀). I still think flexibility is fantastic but if not overused without any real benefit.
Comments
Rubyist here, doing Golang in the last 8 months.
I’m sure that debates in Golang are mainly about the problem itself and not the syntax.
It’s pure pragmatism, no distractions, focus.
It changed my Rubyist perspective forever 😅
Would love to, maybe some day.
(auto-correcting linters exist, Standard Ruby exists, this is a solved problem 😘)
Would you say the pipe operator is an unneeded possible syntax? After all you can
elem = Map.get(map, :value)
elem = String.downcase(elem)
elem = String.replace("
...
If there is a context in which certain syntax feature make the code more readable or more communicative, it's probably worth having it, even if it adds this unnecessary flexibility.
- easy to modify
- easy to debug
- easy to read (although that is subjective)
Endless methods/functions only make code harder to change and debug & for me they are harder to read
Me, 2025: "Ruby is so flexible, this is horrible!"