Yep that's why I hate ruby - worked on one mature codebase for a year and after seeing various such gems used across the project - from >10 devs - I'm confident I will never touch the language again.
Yep that's why I hate ruby - worked on one mature codebase for a year and after seeing various such gems used across the project - from >10 devs - I'm confident I will never touch the language again.
if condition { return }
works well enough in other languages and shows actual condition (the important part) to programmer first. if that if and extra brackets is really too long Perl way is also option. condition || return a=1;b=2;c=3;d=a+b==c?4:5;return dI'm not arguing other languages can't produce bad code, just that ruby is particularly suited for it especially as number of developers working on code increases. I've seen people propose a linter to enforce consistency - but at that point I might as well chose a language with better design choices - plenty of alternatives these days.
You're seriously proposing that adding a linter has the same organizational costs as changing languages entirely. Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Ruby has major advantages over many other languages and a linter is basic tooling you should have in every development environment.
In any case, the Ruby community already has good guidelines on the "Unless" usage, there are few scenarios where they are useful but it's not like you find them everywhere in a codebase.
For example, we don't use "Unless" with "Else", or use Unless with negation (like the article), or use Unless in nested If statement, etc. Rubocop will catch many of these and warn you.
My point is that experienced engineers will use the language as it was intended to and not abuse its features.