Comment by edwinnathaniel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by edwinnathaniel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Some people will point to language design characteristics, which are part of the story, but I think the deeper reason is that ruby does not have a serious corporate sponsor.

Spot on. Biggest reason why I don't think Ruby/Python will grow bigger than what they are today is this. Meanwhile NodeJS/JavaScript is adopted by _many_ companies: IBM, SAP, Google, Joyent, Microsoft, etc. Ruby had some momentum before but none of the big guys extend their support as far as NodeJS/JavaScript.

Having said that, I'd probably use Java for a new company , why not?

Some people say "bulb" I'd say "matured"

Some people say "verbose" I'd say "explicit than implicit" (or code is written once to be read multiple times)

Some people say "bloated framework" I'd say "stable and backward compatible without sacrificing speed and flexibility" or "does not have to reinvent my memory mental model" (compare to different JS API programming style).

Some think Maven "sucks/bloated" but I'd think nothing can touch it for the most part...(plus Maven's idea is copied everywhere else..)

To each of his/her own I suppose.

PS: I use JavaScript 100% to build 2 enterprise products as my day job

When people say Java is "verbose," they usually mean it is relatively hard to read, so I don't see what you mean by "code is written once to be read multiple times." The problem with Java's verbosity is that the code is typically full of noise and redundancy.

If, in 5 years, we're all using node.js, I will leave the industry. JavaScript is an abominable language, I hate that we're stuck with it on the frontend, and I will leave any shop that tries to make it my primary job.

Python has quite a bit of backing, including by every company you listed as backing JavaScript. Admittedly, it's for different reasons, but the support is there. Ruby, well, yeah, that's a totally volunteer job.

> > Some people will point to language design characteristics, which are part of the story, but I think the deeper reason is that ruby does not have a serious corporate sponsor.

> Spot on. Biggest reason why I don't think Ruby/Python will grow bigger than what they are today is this.

While no major corporate sponsors may be the case for Ruby, its not for Python:

https://www.python.org/psf/members/#sponsor-members

I don't know what those sponsors do but I don't see any advancement in the Python world to be honest.

None of these companies decided one day to write the Spring Framework for Python (or the Rails). We got Django that seems stuck in 2005-2009... (no offense to Django devs).

Python runtime hasn't changed much...

Meanwhile in NodeJS land: - GoDaddy decided to re-write stuff using NodeJS - eBay adopting NodeJS in increasing pace - Progress (.com), legacy software company acquired modulus.io (NodeJS shop) - IBM z Systems supports NodeJS - Go to Microsoft Learning, you'll find lots of JavaScript tutorials (NodeJS or WinJS or Angular)

These companies promote NodeJS up-front. When Microsoft decided to hire people behind IronRuby and IronPython, I thought they decided to adopt those languages but that didn't last long before they cut them loose...

> Go to Microsoft Learning, you'll find lots of JavaScript tutorials (NodeJS or WinJS or Angular)

And also quite a bit of Python, including general language courses, Django, Python/Flask/SQL, Python w/MongoDB, etc.

> When Microsoft decided to hire people behind IronRuby and IronPython, I thought they decided to adopt those languages but that didn't last long before they cut them loose...

Microsoft is still a significant backer of Python, not just a PSF sponsor, but also directly employing Python core devs, and doing a lot of direct support for Python. [0]

IronPython and IronRuby weren't Microsoft adopting the Ruby and Python languaegs, they were efforts to alternatives to the core implementations of those languages tied to the .NET platform.

[0] See, e.g., http://pycon.blogspot.com/2015/03/for-microsoft-python-suppo...

> Some people say "verbose" I'd say "explicit than implicit" (or code is written once to be read multiple times)

That's also an argument against verbose. Verbosity hurts on each re-reading. (As does improper terseness.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com