DEV Community

loading...

Discussion on: Ruby 2.7: The Pipeline Operator

Collapse
johncarroll profile image
John Carroll • Edited

I love Ruby, it's the first programming language I ever learned (with Rails), but that is a toneless and disturbing response. Despite using Ruby for a few years now, I had no idea the project was "owned" by Matz. This is a huge blow for my love of the language :'(

Collapse
baweaver profile image
Brandon Weaver Author

I would say this is not a very charitable view of Matz's comment, and it would be wise to remember that English is not his first language. Perhaps we should ask for clarification on what he means by this before jumping to conclusions.

Collapse
johncarroll profile image
John Carroll • Edited

On the face of it, yours seems like a very charitable response. But I see you've met him before so point taken.

Some of this could just be a shattering of the rose-tinted view I've (possibly mistakenly) held of the Ruby language.

It sounds like you've already had a more grounded understanding of Ruby's development process:

I believe you listen, and take our opinions, but ultimately decide on what your vision is. That is your right as the creator of the language.

That's not the community driven process I had imagined. This doesn't help.

Collapse
rubyfeedback profile image
rubyFeedback

Exactly. People love taking things out of context too.

You can see this on reddit, where people keep on claiming "omg omg omg this is not following the principle of least surprise". It seems no matter how often I correct these statements, people do not listen and will repeat these erroneous statements. It is as if some do not want to learn, so they have a closed mind.

Collapse
rubyfeedback profile image
rubyFeedback

I don't see a problem here. Matz created ruby. And it is not as if matz is not listening to feedback either - see the issue tracker.

People who dislike something will always be super-vocal about something, and often use their EMOTION first. You can see it with the numbered parameters where people write terrible claims such as "this makes my code be like perl" or "this leads to sloppy programming". I refuted these statements but it does not change the fact that people are not objective - they are emotional and will make their statements based on emotions.

Language design has to be about making decisions. You can always reason based on objective statements, but not on emotions. And I write this while also saying that I think oldschool ruby is better than modern ruby, even though I write a lot more ruby code these days. Ruby 1.8.x was the best ruby IMO.