> That's not to say that I dislike Ruby. I love Ruby. But it doesn't strike me as a good thing that maintainable Ruby code means avoiding a lot of the cool stuff.
Ruby is in that regard a lot like C or Perl. It gives you lots of power and options to solve a problem your way but that doesn't mean you should always do so. Rails has used those options extensively and that explains a lot of the criticism you hear about it.
This also means Ruby is not for everybody but what language is? IMO you can write unmaintainable code in any language and there is none that makes that hard enough, so I'm firmly in the camp that I'd rather have the full power at my fingertips when I need it than being restricted.
Although with the renaissance of functional programming, I would also love to discover a functional language that felt as fresh, powerful, and elegant as Ruby was for OO programming.
Although with the renaissance of functional programming, I would also love to discover a functional language that felt as fresh, powerful, and elegant as Ruby was for OO programming.
Ruby is in that regard a lot like C or Perl. It gives you lots of power and options to solve a problem your way but that doesn't mean you should always do so. Rails has used those options extensively and that explains a lot of the criticism you hear about it.
This also means Ruby is not for everybody but what language is? IMO you can write unmaintainable code in any language and there is none that makes that hard enough, so I'm firmly in the camp that I'd rather have the full power at my fingertips when I need it than being restricted.
Although with the renaissance of functional programming, I would also love to discover a functional language that felt as fresh, powerful, and elegant as Ruby was for OO programming.