28 August, 2009

Update to Post Regarding Hacking & Ruby

This will be a very short entry as it is rather late and I'm looking forward to sleep. I would do but I do feel that I have to get some observations off of my chest after the past 6 hours of exploring ruby (for the third time).

#1. Ruby isn't as intuitive as one might suspect. Maybe python and others of similar influence (groovy) have raised the bar too high in terms of dynamic language syntax and expectations. The standard ruby idioms are inconsistent and ill-named in several cases, mostly involving native data sets.

#2. Namespaces in Ruby are an even bigger mess than perl. To some degree, perl's system seemed to make sense yet from what I've read, seen and with which I experimented, I find the namespace setup for Ruby to be subpar and dare I saw far from fluid in implementation details.

#3. Ruby is indeed very slow, especially when working with the Array types in combination with large datasets and continual pre-requisite 'include?' method calls for each datum in said set. I did find that I was able to achieve the same results wanted via Hash population followed by a dump of keys to an Array with a noticable speedup, removing the need for the very slow 'include?' method. Membership tests are a joy of high level languages, but a drain on some resources, ruby more than others though without a doubt.

#4. The novelty of mutable and immutable version of method calls (collect! vs. collect, slice! vs. slice) is just that. A novelty. This is an ambiguity which I believe does not help to further ease of readability and usability. It further necessitates that non-standard library code implement similar idioms and 'practices' for uniformity's sake with the downside being a snowball effect in this area.

#5. Ruby isn't sure if it wants to be perl, c, smalltalk or itself as can be determined by the mix and match of terms, keywords and standard method names. It doesn't feel like a concrete language that was purpose built, but more like an object system with various sources for tacking on the remaining pieces of the language so as to round out the feature range.

These experiences with Ruby (for the third time) may have been different had I not been spoiled by Python (most notably), or were I not coding in the field for the past 15 years. This is not the case nonetheless. I couldn't see myself coding in this language for anything mission critical or heavy duty and after looking at the problems many of the ruby back-ended software systems and/or websites vs. the other high-level dynamic languages have suffered, it becomes quite clear when industry giants such as Google and IBM throw their weight behind Python.
This isn't meant to be an argument starting post about Ruby vs. Python as they can be found elsewhere, though if the shoe fits...

1 comment: