Is Ruby Dying?
New submitter John Moses writes "I have been working with node.js a lot lately, and have been discussing with co-workers if node.js is taking steam away from Ruby at all. I think the popularity of the language is an important talking point when selecting a language and framework for a new project. A graph on the release date of gems over time could help determine an answer. The front page of RubyGems only shows data on the most popular, but I am really interested in seeing recent activity. My theory is that if developers' contributions to different gems is slowing down, then so is the popularity of the language."
Long answer: a better indicator is how many Google queries for the respective languages are issued. And those suggest that Ruby is standing stronger than ever. Ruby is more than just Rails. And just because there is yet another web apps framework, it doesn't mean that the other ones automatically lose traction.
Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp
Chef and Puppet are huge in DevOps. It seems Ruby has found its niche.
Trends always die.
All-purpose languages that adapt over time are better tools to learn.
You learn more in depth, instead of having certain tasks be very easy.
This is similar to the trade off between wizard-based interfaces and actually knowing what you're doing with an operating system.
Futurist Traditionalism
This isn't about anyone's "personal feelings" about JavaScript.
This is about the hard, objective facts. This is about basic software engineering principles. This is about a minimal level of professionalism.
JavaScript is objectively a bad language. I really hope that we don't need to go through the list of problems with it, but maybe we should address at least some of the most serious problems. Its type system is very broken. Its object system is a joke (prototype OO is always inferior to class OO; that's why everyone tries to fake classes using prototypes, and the result is always terrible). Its comparison operators are broken. It doesn't offer sensible modularity. It doesn't offer useful namespacing. Its implementations are generally bad, even the ones receiving much investment and effort from large and well-funded organizations like Google, Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft. Its development tools are a decade or more behind those of Java and C++. It's rife with stupidity like semicolon insertion. It has almost no standard library, and what does exist exhibits complete idiocy in almost every respect.
For crying out loud, the most respected JavaScript book is Crockford's "JavaScript: The Good Parts". Almost the entire book tells you to not use significant features of JavaScript! Only a very broken programming language would have a book like that become so popular and recommended.
Professional software developers can only express disgust when it comes to JavaScript. There's just no way that anyone who cares about doing a good job can seriously consider it anything less that a terrible disaster. JavaScript is indisputably a horrible programming language. It's just not possible to suggest otherwise.
Dear Ruby: Please leave Chef behind and go and die in some dark corner. Take rails with you. Thanks.