In your opinion....

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Daniel Lewis, Sep 29, 2005.

  1. Daniel Lewis

    Daniel Lewis Guest

    In your opinion(s)....

    What is ruby better for and why?
    I am talking mainly about is Ruby better for web based development
    (i.e. Ruby on Rails)? or other stuff, whether it be scientific,
    business or technological?

    Thank you all for your answers.

    Daniel Lewis.
    Daniel Lewis, Sep 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Daniel Lewis wrote:
    > In your opinion(s)....
    >
    > What is ruby better for and why?
    > I am talking mainly about is Ruby better for web based development
    > (i.e. Ruby on Rails)? or other stuff, whether it be scientific,
    > business or technological?
    >
    > Thank you all for your answers.
    >
    > Daniel Lewis.
    >

    Too lazy to do your own research? It happens ;-). For a starter, check
    out http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RealWorldRuby

    Gennady.
    Gennady Bystritksy, Sep 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Daniel Lewis

    Daniel Lewis Guest

    > Too lazy to do your own research? It happens ;-). For a starter, check
    > out http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RealWorldRuby


    Thats quite a good little page... thanks. However, I am asking you
    lot, in your experience what is Ruby good for.
    Daniel Lewis, Sep 29, 2005
    #3
  4. Daniel Lewis

    Mike Pence Guest

    I am new to Ruby, but its expressiveness as a language is profound.
    So, I would say that any application where you want to achieve a high
    level of functionality with a fraction of the lines of code and
    overall effort of other approaches is a great fit for Ruby.

    Of course, there are problem domains where Ruby is not a good fit. For
    systems-level development, you want to use C or Assembler. For complex
    mathematical modelling, there are functional programming languages
    that are a better fit. But for most business and internet apps, Ruby
    can't be beat.

    Mike Pence
    Mike Pence, Sep 29, 2005
    #4
  5. Daniel Lewis

    Daniel Lewis Guest

    On 29/09/05, Mike Pence <> wrote:
    > "For complex mathematical modelling, there are functional programming lan=

    guages
    > that are a better fit."


    OK I agree with what you say about this. But according to this site:
    http://www.jvoegele.com/software/langcomp.html
    Ruby has the ability to be used as a functional language (as well as
    Smalltalk, Python, Perl and Eiffel).

    In my final year of university (which starts in September 2006), I
    will be learning Hugs (a Haskell varient) for Functional
    Programming... it will be interesting how it compares to Ruby, and I
    would like to learn how to use Ruby as a functional language.

    I'll be using Ruby for my dissertation, I'll be developing some type
    of program that uses Fuzzy Logic... possibly something to do with
    Robotics, Agents or Control... not sure yet.

    Please continue to discuss,

    Thanks,

    Daniel.
    Daniel Lewis, Sep 29, 2005
    #5
  6. Daniel Lewis wrote:
    > In your opinion(s)....
    >
    > What is ruby better for and why?
    > I am talking mainly about is Ruby better for web based development
    > (i.e. Ruby on Rails)? or other stuff, whether it be scientific,
    > business or technological?


    Do you mean better compared to language X or do you mean what application
    area Ruby suits best?

    IMHO it's very good for scripting and learning (programming in general and
    especially OO).

    Kind regards

    robert
    Robert Klemme, Sep 29, 2005
    #6
  7. Daniel Lewis

    Kevin Brown Guest

    On Thursday 29 September 2005 09:55, Daniel Lewis wrote:
    > On 29/09/05, Mike Pence <> wrote:
    > > "For complex mathematical modelling, there are functional programming
    > > languages that are a better fit."

    >
    > OK I agree with what you say about this. But according to this site:
    > http://www.jvoegele.com/software/langcomp.html
    > Ruby has the ability to be used as a functional language (as well as
    > Smalltalk, Python, Perl and Eiffel).


    Yes, you can. The opinion expressed above was simply that those other
    languages are a better fit.

    > In my final year of university (which starts in September 2006), I
    > will be learning Hugs (a Haskell varient) for Functional
    > Programming... it will be interesting how it compares to Ruby, and I
    > would like to learn how to use Ruby as a functional language.


    Um....it's not hard...? Just don't define classes and do function calls.
    It's like trying to "learn" how to use C++ as a functional language.
    Eventually, everything collapses to a functional level because it has to to
    get executed by the processor. One instruction at a time. So you just don't
    use the extra OO framework built into ruby, instead pretending that def gives
    you a function instead of a method.

    > I'll be using Ruby for my dissertation, I'll be developing some type
    > of program that uses Fuzzy Logic... possibly something to do with
    > Robotics, Agents or Control... not sure yet.


    Cool. :)

    > Please continue to discuss,
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Daniel.
    Kevin Brown, Sep 29, 2005
    #7
  8. Daniel Lewis

    Mike Pence Guest

    Specifically, I was thinking of whatever it is that Mathematica uses
    and PL1 -- Ruby is declarative programming language with functional
    aspects, but I don't think it is a purely functional programming
    languages. Otherwise, wouldn't we be writing functions instead of
    methods?
    Mike Pence, Sep 29, 2005
    #8
  9. Daniel Lewis

    Daniel Lewis Guest

    > Do you mean better compared to language X or do you mean what application
    > area Ruby suits best?


    What application... but if you have made a tool in ruby and another
    language... you could tell us about it.

    Daniel.
    Daniel Lewis, Sep 29, 2005
    #9
  10. Daniel Lewis

    Rob Rypka Guest

    ------=_Part_6247_15326877.1128010759549
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Content-Disposition: inline

    On 9/29/05, Daniel Lewis <> wrote:
    >
    > > Too lazy to do your own research? It happens ;-). For a starter, check
    > > out http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RealWorldRuby

    >
    > Thats quite a good little page... thanks. However, I am asking you
    > lot, in your experience what is Ruby good for.
    >
    >

    If you watch this list for a while, you'll start to recognize some of the
    names on that page :).

    Anyways, I've carrying around some loose change, so you can have my $0.02:

    I am probably one of the few people on this list who haven't used Rails (I
    installed it, and I intend to, but I'm too busy/lazy). I think that Ruby
    excels in a number of areas.

    The first is as a "glue language," which is something that Perl is generall=
    y
    attributed to. This usually involves text processing, and between the
    Perl-like regular expressions features, OO and Mixins, and iterators/blocks=
    ,
    this becomes cake.

    An example: At work, we used Ruby to convert strace output from a build to =
    a
    list of compiler calls, so we could send them to another compiler-like tool=
    Rob Rypka, Sep 29, 2005
    #10
  11. Daniel Lewis

    Phil Tomson Guest

    In article <>,
    Daniel Lewis <> wrote:
    >In your opinion(s)....
    >
    >What is ruby better for and why?
    >I am talking mainly about is Ruby better for web based development
    >(i.e. Ruby on Rails)? or other stuff, whether it be scientific,
    >business or technological?
    >


    Ruby has already proven quite successful for web development (via Rails). I
    use Ruby for various scientific applications and for me it's been quite
    successful, YMMV.

    Phil
    Phil Tomson, Sep 29, 2005
    #11
  12. > What is ruby better for and why?

    I think your question is a bit vague. For me, programming Ruby is
    usually better than falling out of a flying plane without a parachute.
    On the other hand, I usually prefer having a parachute with me than
    programming Ruby when I am already in free fall.

    --
    martinus | http://martinus.geekisp.com/
    Martin Ankerl, Sep 29, 2005
    #12
  13. Ruby is NOT good for:

    1) Writing Garbage Collectors or other memory allocators.
    2) Ram tests.
    3) Simulating the weather or designing A-bombs -- most of the stuff they do on a
    super-computer.
    4) Device Drivers.
    5) Code that goes in ROM, or other embedded systems.
    6) Winning the Obfuscated C contest.
    7) Building SPAM systems to send out zillions of offensive e-mails.
    8) Violating the laws of thermodynamics.

    Warren Seltzer
    Warren Seltzer, Sep 29, 2005
    #13
  14. Warren Seltzer wrote:

    >Ruby is NOT good for:
    >
    >1) Writing Garbage Collectors or other memory allocators.
    >2) Ram tests.
    >3) Simulating the weather or designing A-bombs -- most of the stuff they do on a
    >super-computer.
    >4) Device Drivers.
    >5) Code that goes in ROM, or other embedded systems.
    >6) Winning the Obfuscated C contest.
    >7) Building SPAM systems to send out zillions of offensive e-mails.
    >8) Violating the laws of thermodynamics.
    >
    >Warren Seltzer
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Actually, I think Ruby would work quite well for #7........


    uh, not that I uh would you know.

    -Justin
    Justin Collins, Sep 29, 2005
    #14
  15. Daniel Lewis wrote:
    >=20
    > OK I agree with what you say about this. But according to this site:
    > http://www.jvoegele.com/software/langcomp.html
    > Ruby has the ability to be used as a functional language (as well as
    > Smalltalk, Python, Perl and Eiffel).
    >=20


    Well, as long as one can do higher-order functions, one can eventually=20
    program in a functional way. But not necessarily nicely ;) .

    > In my final year of university (which starts in September 2006), I
    > will be learning Hugs (a Haskell varient) for Functional
    > Programming... it will be interesting how it compares to Ruby, and I
    > would like to learn how to use Ruby as a functional language.
    >=20


    You'll find out Haskell is quite a different beast. It has interesting=20
    features, but it doesn't have much in common with imperative languages=20
    like Ruby. Its IO model is =FCbercool though (completely functional, whic=
    h=20
    is quite a feat, and basically making IO actions into objects rather=20
    than actions. But if you really want to understand how it works, you=20
    need to understand the monad, which is quite an esoteric mathematical=20
    notion - and I'm someone who used to eat distributions for breakfast, so=20
    abstract mathematical notions normally don't frighten me ;) -).

    Yet it's a great way to open your mind to other possibilities, and to a=20
    language where space is meaningful which is not Python ;) .

    > I'll be using Ruby for my dissertation, I'll be developing some type
    > of program that uses Fuzzy Logic... possibly something to do with
    > Robotics, Agents or Control... not sure yet.
    >=20


    Interesting...
    --=20
    Christophe Grandsire.

    http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

    You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.
    Christophe Grandsire, Sep 29, 2005
    #15
  16. Daniel Lewis

    Rob Rypka Guest

    ------=_Part_8824_10981149.1128026667290
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Content-Disposition: inline

    On 9/29/05, Justin Collins <> wrote:

    > >7) Building SPAM systems to send out zillions of offensive e-mails.

    >
    > Actually, I think Ruby would work quite well for #7........
    >
    >
    > uh, not that I uh would you know.
    >
    > -Justin
    >
    >

    I just about had the same response (I, um, don't know either). Then I
    started thinking...

    <devil's advocate>
    Wouldn't a goal of spam software be to load it onto someone else's machine
    so you don't get caught (and for parallelism)? In order to get the maximum
    return on this sort of program, you should target Windows boxes of
    non-technical/home users - security is looser, and they probably won't
    notice until it's too late (ISP b4|\|n4g3!). But, really, how many of these
    machines are going to have Ruby installed? You're better off writing these
    in some native Windows scripting thing - the code may be uglier, but it
    would at least run...

    Now, of course, Ruby would be great as a meta-programming language to
    generate variations on these scripts!
    </devil's advocate>

    --
    Rob

    ------=_Part_8824_10981149.1128026667290--
    Rob Rypka, Sep 29, 2005
    #16
  17. Daniel Lewis

    John Carter Guest

    On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Daniel Lewis wrote:

    > What is ruby better for and why?


    The perl folk describe perl as the Swiss Army chain saw.

    Meaning it has as many uses as a Swiss Army knife that has many different
    blades and gadgets and is powerful as a chain saw.

    Ruby is like Perl but better.

    ie. It is Very Good for Many purposes.




    John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
    Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
    PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email :
    New Zealand

    Carter's Clarification of Murphy's Law.

    "Things only ever go right so that they may go more spectacularly wrong later."

    From this principle, all of life and physics may be deduced.
    John Carter, Sep 29, 2005
    #17
  18. Daniel Lewis

    Greg Loriman Guest


    >In your opinion(s)....


    >What is ruby better for and why?


    Ruby is good at attracting bores. Notice how many people have replied to
    your message with non-answers, perhaps supposed to be amusing, but really
    just irritating and unfunny. Or worse, the presumptuous : "go and do your
    homework". Makes me feel an unchristian desire to kill.

    Perhaps this is the penalty of a geek language; the signal to bore ratio in
    this group is not so good.

    Coming back to your question : Ruby is nice, but don't get bamboozled by the
    ruby crowd. Someone with a clear head needs to come along and critique the
    language more objectively than I have seen so far. hOwever I'm not saying
    its a bad langauge; far from it,

    For example: although some would push Ruby for big projects there are
    reasons to be circumspect about such a decision. Not being a Ruby expert I
    cannot elaborate too much, except to say that there are some
    industrial-strength-unfriendly-and-too-powerful-perhaps features in the
    language, like C++ but much more elegant possibilities for self destruction.
    The Rails project also needs proper examination. It seem like the soloution
    to all our problems, the way people talk about it. But there are sounds from
    the deep (the WWW) to think that it is not the solution to all our
    problems. Again I am unable to elaborate, but you can look around.

    So be careful of the ruby fanatics; they have funny starring eyes and froth
    coming from their mouths, like mad dogs.

    Greg
    Greg Loriman, Sep 30, 2005
    #18
  19. Daniel Lewis

    Kev Jackson Guest


    >Ruby is good at attracting bores. Notice how many people have replied to
    >your message with non-answers, perhaps supposed to be amusing, but really
    >just irritating and unfunny. Or worse, the presumptuous : "go and do your
    >homework". Makes me feel an unchristian desire to kill.
    >
    >Perhaps this is the penalty of a geek language; the signal to bore ratio in
    >this group is not so good.
    >
    >
    >

    Why would you say that ruby is a geek language? Are not all computer
    languages at least a little geeky? And to be honest with you I find
    this to be the opposite, there are far more people on this list who
    (like myself) seem to have just started with ruby coming from
    php/perl/$dynamic language than people with the deepest ruby knowledge
    (although there are a few of those too).

    If you want to see real evangilizing, drop in the rails mailing list :)

    to answer the original question..

    From my experience ruby is useful for data munging tasks, it's useful
    for prototyping (rails is a good framework to build a little just to get
    initial feedback from the customer).

    They're the only things I've used ruby for so I'd be lying if I said
    that you could program satellites/mars rovers/"enterprise thingies" etc.

    On a personal note, I like it, I like it more than Java, more than C,
    much more than VB or C#. It feels productive to me - no more
    compililations is a good thing when you have to knock up a one-off
    tool. On the other hand it's currently an interpreted language so for
    certain classes of problem (HPC/TPC) it's probably not the best choice
    yet. Still Lisp feels hyper-productive and can be compiled, Haskell
    also feels good and you can compile that, but neither of them as as easy
    to pick up as ruby, so it depends a lot on what you want

    I'm going to use it to build up a small app that I've got 50% complete
    in Java to try it in a different problem domain, I'll be initerested to
    see how much difficulty I have with it there (UI+ natural language data
    crunching)

    Kev
    Kev Jackson, Sep 30, 2005
    #19
  20. Greg Loriman wrote:

    >For example: although some would push Ruby for big projects there are
    >reasons to be circumspect about such a decision. Not being a Ruby expert I
    >cannot elaborate too much, except to say that there are some
    >industrial-strength-unfriendly-and-too-powerful-perhaps features in the
    >language, like C++ but much more elegant possibilities for self destruction.
    >
    >

    When I started out with Ruby, I had the same suspicions. Open classes,
    no type declarations on method headers, require
    'filename_instead_of_class_name', among others, scared me about using it
    as part of a team. I did my best to investigate this to see if it rang
    true -- my conclusion now is that Ruby is not a good idea if nobody has
    any control over the team, and it's complete chaos. There are enough
    harmful things that can be done, but are harder to do in whatever your
    team already uses (if only because they know the language), that you
    need a team to actually coordinate, and write unit tests, and rdoc
    comments, and agree on certain standards, and review each other's code,
    etc. But if you have that, it seems to me that Ruby would make the team
    go much faster.

    >The Rails project also needs proper examination. It seem like the soloution
    >to all our problems, the way people talk about it. But there are sounds from
    >the deep (the WWW) to think that it is not the solution to all our
    >problems. Again I am unable to elaborate, but you can look around.
    >
    >

    I can elaborate a little bit. The "sounds from the deep" mostly point to
    a lack of JMS, JTA, an ESB. Instead, Rails & Ruby have different
    solutions to asynchronous messaging, transactions, and distributed
    processing -- and they may not be overly complex enough for your needs.
    :) If you've got requirements for that sort of stuff, then...

    >So be careful of the ruby fanatics; they have funny starring eyes and froth
    >coming from their mouths, like mad dogs.
    >
    >

    Actually, we're pretty reasonable.

    And yes, I'll throw in a "Ruby is fantastic for prototyping, and then
    realizing that your prototype is actually a fully-functional version of
    the thing you were trying to mock up." But that took me, like, 2 days
    to discover.

    Devin "Mad Dog" Mullins
    Devin Mullins, Sep 30, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mono
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    322
    David Waz...
    Jul 4, 2003
  2. Ray Dixon [MVP]

    Re: Your opinion about stored procedures

    Ray Dixon [MVP], Jul 25, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    378
    Peter Gossmann
    Jul 26, 2003
  3. Jerry

    Please share your opinion with me.

    Jerry, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    310
    Rajeev Soni
    Aug 4, 2003
  4. Martin Feuersteiner
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,200
  5. Miguel Dias Moura
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    365
    Miguel Dias Moura
    Feb 2, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page