this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
36 points (89.1% liked)

Programming

17669 readers
166 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 [email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
snowe
Ategon
[email protected]
36
What programming language ruby, python og javascript? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/programming
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm looking for a programming language that can help me build a desktop application for Windows, macOS, and Linux that's not big but not small either. Additionally, I'd like to be able to build a website with the same language. I've been considering Ruby, Python, Golang and JavaScript. Python seems to be mainly used for scripting and ai, so I'm not sure if it's the best fit. JavaScript has a lot of negative opinions surrounding it, while Ruby sounds interesting. Can anyone recommend a language that meets my requirements?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FizzyOrange 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You’re talking about rails.

Maybe other Ruby code is better, but people always say Rails is the killer app of Ruby so...

Use an IDE like I said and you can literally just “Find all usages” or “Jump to declaration”, etc.

That only works if you have static type annotations, which seems to be very rare in the Ruby world.

In any case, you shouldn’t be using any of these for large projects like gitlab, so it’s completely inconsequential.

Well, I agree you shouldn't use Ruby for large projects like Gitlab. But why use it for anything?

[–] tyler 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Maybe other Ruby code is better, but people always say Rails is the killer app of Ruby so…

I've literally never heard anyone say that...

That only works if you have static type annotations, which seems to be very rare in the Ruby world.

no. it literally works for any ruby code in any project. you do not need static type annotations at all. I can tell you've literally never even tried this...

Well, I agree you shouldn’t use Ruby for large projects like Gitlab. But why use it for anything?

because it's a fantastic scripting language with a runtime that is available on almost every platform on the planet by default (yes most linux distributions include it, compared to something like python which is hardly ever included and if it is it's 2.x instead of 3.x). It's also much more readable than bash, python, javascript, etc. so writing a readable (and runnable everywhere) script is dead simple. Writing CLIs with it is also dead simple, while I think Python has a few better libraries for this like Click, Ruby is much more portable than Python (this isn't my opinion, this is experience from shipping both ruby and python clis for years).

[–] FizzyOrange 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I’ve literally never heard anyone say that

Well you didn't listen then. Google the phrase.

I can tell you’ve literally never even tried this…

I do not need to try it to know that this is fundamental impossible. But I will try it because you can go some way towards proper type knowledge without explicit annotations (e.g. Pycharm can do this for Python) and it's better than nothing (but still not as good as actual type annotations).

It’s also much more readable than bash, python, javascript, etc. so writing a readable (and runnable everywhere)

Bash definitely. Not sure I'd agree for Python though. That's extremely readable.

[–] tyler 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Jump to declarations or usages has absolutely nothing to do with types so I have no clue why you think type annotations to make jump to useful.

[–] FizzyOrange 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oh really? How would an IDE go-to-definition on x.bar in this code?

def foo(x):
  return x.bar

Best it can do is heuristics and guesswork.

[–] tyler 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

By using the AST? Do you really not know how languages work? I mean seriously, this is incredibly basic stuff. You don’t need to know the type to jump to the ast node location. Do you think that formatters for dynamic languages need to know the type in order to format them properly? Then why in the world would you need it to know where to jump to in a type definition!?!

Edit: also in the case of Ruby, the entire thing runs on a VM which used to be YARV but I think might have changed recently. So there’s literally bytecode providing all the information needed to run it. I highly recommend reading a book about how the Ruby internals work since you seem to think you understand but it’s quite clear you don’t, or for some reason think “jump to” is this magical thing that requires types.

[–] FizzyOrange 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're getting a bit confused. How do you know where x's type is defined and therefore where x.bar is defined if you don't know what type x is? It's literally impossible. Best you can do is global type inference but that has very big limitations and is not really feasible in a language that wasn't designed for it.

Do you think that formatters for dynamic languages need to know the type in order to format them properly? Then why in the world would you need it to know where to jump to in a type definition!?!

Not sure if that is a serious question, but it's because formatting doesn't depend on the type of variables but going to the definition of a field obviously depends on the type that the field is in.

Maybe my example was not clear enough for you - I guess it's possible you've never experienced working intellisense, so you don't understand the feature I'm describing.

class A:
  bar: int

class B:
  bar: str

def foo(x):
  return x.bar

Ctrl-click on bar. Where does it jump to?

[–] tyler 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not sure if that is a serious question, but it’s because formatting doesn’t depend on the type of variables but going to the definition of a field obviously depends on the type that the field is in.

formatting does depend on the type of variables. Go look at ktfmt's codebase and come back after you've done so...

Maybe my example was not clear enough for you - I guess it’s possible you’ve never experienced working intellisense, so you don’t understand the feature I’m describing.

Lol, nice try with the insult there. I code in Kotlin, my intellisense works just fine. I just think you're quite ignorant and have no clue what you're actually talking about.

Ctrl-click on bar. Where does it jump to?

it gives you an option, just like if it was an interface. Did you actually try this out before commenting? Guessing not. And how often are you naming functions the exact same thing across two different classes without using an interface? And if you were using an interface intellisense would work the exact same way, giving you the option to jump to any of the implementations.

I'm sorry, but you clearly haven't thought this out, or you're really quite ignorant as to how intellisense works in all languages (including Ruby, and including statically typed languages).

[–] FizzyOrange 1 points 5 months ago

formatting does depend on the type of variables. Go look at ktfmt’s codebase and come back after you’ve done so…

I skimmed it. It appears to visit the AST of the code and format that, as any formatter does. ASTs have not been type checked.

Can you give an example?

it gives you an option, just like if it was an interface. Did you actually try this out before commenting?

Precisely! It doesn't know the answer so it has to guess, or make you guess.

And how often are you naming functions the exact same thing across two different classes without using an interface?

You mean how often does the same field name come up more than once? All the time obviously! Think about common names like id, size, begin, children, etc. etc.

I’m sorry, but you clearly haven’t thought this out, or you’re really quite ignorant as to how intellisense works in all languages (including Ruby, and including statically typed languages).

I'm sorry but you clearly haven't thought this through, or you're just happy to ignore the limitations of Ruby. I suspect the latter. Please don't pretend they aren't limitations though. It's ok to say "yes this isn't very good but I like Ruby anyway".