Re:Ruby's official documentation just got a new look
by pilaf on Sunday August 25, 2024 @06:43AM
(#41346272)
> Maybe Ruby isn't used for accessible web development.
What an unnecessary comment. Sure, the docs website could use more work, but what does the choice of a language used for back-end development have to do with the quality of the front-end code (non-Ruby) in those same projects?
Re:Ruby's official documentation just got a new look
by bachmeier on Sunday August 25, 2024 @11:13AM
(#41347853)
> What an unnecessary comment.
It's 2024. Accessibility is absolutely worthy of comment, particularly if you're boasting about being a language used for web development. They could have used one of the thousands of available existing solutions rather than rolling their own.
> a language used for back-end development have to do with the quality of the front-end code (non-Ruby)
Ruby is used for a more than the back-end. Check out Sinatra or Rails.
Re:Ruby's official documentation just got a new look
by paradox460 on Monday August 26, 2024 @11:02AM
(#41357816)
Sinatra and rails both run on the backend
Talk about irony. I increased the font to 150% so I could read that very sentence, and it's literally impossible to do so, because the sidebar covers the text when you zoom in that far. And the only reason I zoomed in that far was because they used Lato-light rather than Lato-regular. Maybe Ruby isn't used for accessible web development.