Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by dialamac on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @10:05PM
(#25065949)
I don’t see your point. A large base of Nim users are looking for a pragmatic alternative to the C/C++ family without the aggressive anti-modernism of Go. Nim is certainly not the only player in this realm, but far as I know there isn’t a “Nim Drama” Twitter or tumblr. The drama queen stereotype of Ruby and Rails is very well earned on a repeated basis. All the communities have had their dramas but Ruby and Rust to a lesser extent seem to attract it a lot more as a pattern.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by cambalache on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @11:21PM
(#25066402)
> A large base of Nim users are looking for a pragmatic alternative to the C/C++ family without the aggressive anti-modernism of Go.
You guys make this too easy. Unless it was sarcasm, so whoosh me, and chapeau!
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by ImprobableTruth on Thursday November 12, 2020 @06:45AM
(#25068790)
Well, you sure make a good case for Rubyists being incredibly pretentious.
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by ForHackernews on Thursday November 12, 2020 @07:07AM
(#25068932)
Hardly anyone uses Nim. It's extremely niche, even compared to something like Rust. That's why there's no Nim infighting.
Before you can have dozens of people fighting about a thing, you need more than a dozen people to care about that thing.