News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it?.

Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by Grue3 on Thursday May 25, 2017 @03:54PM (#14419690)
Is Ruby supposed to be an example of "not dying" language? Because it has certainly passed its glory days as well.

Also Common Lisp is better in every way ;) There's even a JVM implementation (ABCL) for people who like that sort of stuff.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by swannodette on Thursday May 25, 2017 @04:03PM (#14419748)
I don't know but it seems to me Ruby is dying the same way anything else with 200,000+ questions on Stack Overflow is dying (i.e. it isn't).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by dragandj on Thursday May 25, 2017 @04:22PM (#14419861)
David, you have to put more bugs in ClojureScript - we need way more questions on StackOverflow ASAP! :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by cutler on Friday May 26, 2017 @12:28AM (#14421999)
... and 134,468 gems at a rate of 33 per day (http://www.modulecounts.com).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by mirekrusin on Thursday May 25, 2017 @04:52PM (#14420074)
Funnily enough Ruby is doing not too bad - according to contributions [1] it's at stable speed since 2008 (!) without any slowdown. Similarly Rails [2] looks like healthy, steady project.

Ruby/Rails, for rapid prototyping [3] with minimal friction [4] it's still, after years, considered by many, as the best tool for the job.

[1] https://github.com/ruby/ruby/graphs/contributors

[2] https://github.com/rails/rails/graphs/contributors

[3] rapid prototypes land as production systems - that's a pro tip.

[4] minimal friction on all levels that you, as a programer care - from reading and writing code, scaffolding, dev/staging/production deployment, database migrations, testing to caching etc. - not many setups give you all of this.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by mark_l_watson on Thursday May 25, 2017 @04:30PM (#14419930)
I agree with you, Common Lisp does seem better and ABCL does well with Java interop (as does Clojure).

While the community around Clojure is fantastically good, I don't like the language itself as much. Personally for my hacking pleasure, Haskell, Common Lisp, Chez Scheme (or other Schemes), and Ruby are all more fun for me to use.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by GigaMos on Sunday May 28, 2017 @07:09AM (#14433905)
If I remember correctly, you showed some kindness towards Clojure (the language). May I ask, what made you reconsider?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by flavio81 on Thursday May 25, 2017 @04:24PM (#14419877)
True, Common Lisp is better in every way, but still Clojure has its uses (in my opinion, mainly when you need to interact with a lot of Java libraries and don't want to submit to the sadism of the Java language.)

Also, the more Clojure users out there, the more people are potentially able to "jump" to the other Lisps like Racket, Arc, Scheme, and CL.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by throwaway7645 on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:11PM (#14421410)
Does anyone actually use Arc? Racket, Common Lisp, Clojure, Picolisp even yes. Arc was just used for this forum right and is based on Racket?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by dragonwriter on Thursday May 25, 2017 @05:38PM (#14420323)
> Is Ruby supposed to be an example of "not dying" language? Because it has certainly passed its glory days as well.

It may have past the (or a local) hype peak, but it seems to be doing just fine. Not being the edgy flavor of the month isn't the same as dying.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Clojure dying, and what has Ruby got to do with it? by jakebasile on Thursday May 25, 2017 @04:38PM (#14419974)
Why do you consider Common Lisp better in every way?
[ Parent | on HN ]