News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ruby 2.6 by xiphias2 on Monday December 24, 2018 @09:20AM (#18752224)
For me it is too much fun. I love that I can use most of the standard library without thinking / looking at the documentation, and not needing to wait for compilation.

But at the same time I hate that I love a language that performs so bad compared to being closer to the metal.

Re:Ruby 2.6 by rakoo on Monday December 24, 2018 @09:25AM (#18752239)
Have you looked at crystal (https://crystal-lang.org/) ? Very ruby-like, but has additional safeties and compiles to native.
Re:Ruby 2.6 by xiphias2 on Monday December 24, 2018 @09:55AM (#18752377)
It looks fun, but as I'm doing financial modelling right now, Julia may be a better fit for me, as it has very nice libraries as well.
Re:Ruby 2.6 by amalawi on Monday December 24, 2018 @11:21AM (#18752786)
You may want to check APL family as a possible option for prototyping at least.
Re:Ruby 2.6 by xiphias2 on Tuesday December 25, 2018 @09:57AM (#18757625)
APL itself looks really really bad language with bad documentation, no real libraries, non-existent type system, bad function names, and I don't see any GPU programming support in it. In the family Matlab is still the best (It can do Monte Carlo simulation on the GPU, and has a great library for different distributions), but it's still much slower language than Julia generally.
Re:Ruby 2.6 by faitswulff on Monday December 24, 2018 @09:34AM (#18752278)
What use cases do you have that are more performant in other languages?
Re:Ruby 2.6 by xiphias2 on Monday December 24, 2018 @09:44AM (#18752322)
Right now I'm working on financial time series modelling. I can't use numerical arrays because the model is not parallelizable. Also R / Mathematica are not good for these kind of stuff.

I'm thinking of trying out Julia, as it's dynamic but still has a lot of interesting libraries, but for now I just decided with working with small data, so actually I don't have performance problems.