[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzDi8u3WMj0 [2] https://world.hey.com/dhh/living-with-linux-and-android-afte...
I've been using for more than a decade and have never found it to be "frustratingly slow", whatever that means in practice. Except when running on Docker on a co-worker's Apple product, which I do not use.
Anyway, obviously Ruby (or any other dynamic language for that matter) isn't the solution to every problem. I was once tasked to refurbish an old Delphi desktop application that did some thermal simulations; I wrote the interface as a Rails webapp and the simulation itself as a compiled C routine, which I called from Rails via FFI.
Pretty sure it's a Docker on Mac issue.
I personally use all three major OS, Mac at work, Windows for gaming, Linux for everything else. For me different OS serves different purposes and gives me task-oriented productivity boost.
I respect that and truly admire what dhh has done and tweeted about over the last year or so. But for a business to mandate an operating system for their developers (which I fully agree they have the right to do) with those reasons is underwhelming.
What is a productivity boost for you in one OS might be a burden to someone else. And vice versa. That's the benefit of letting developers choose their OS.
I'm sure it is very configurable, but every visual I've seen of this thing looks awful and not something I'd want to look at while working. But I understand we all have different tastes.
But even in the blog post I'm struggling with 'why?' here. Am I to understand the primary benefits here are improved battery life and increased developer productivity by tests running faster? Is that it?
I travel an inordinate amount and have never found a Macbook's battery life to be insufficient. I struggle to even remember the last time I've used my computer long enough to drain the batter and not be near a power outlet. I work from ski lodges, planes, my car. This has never been a problem for me. Not once. This just feels like a really bad metric to optimize for given a typical developers' schedule and work arrangement.
> On the flip side, we'll get a massive boost in productivity from being able to run our Ruby on Rails test suites locally much faster.
Is this not just a Ruby issue? I don't know what's basecamp or HEYs codebase looks like on the inside, but they don't feel like projects whose tests suites should require a completely different OS or hardware arrangement. I haven't used Ruby in a decade but I do recall it being frustratingly slow. This seemed to be an understood and accepted reality amongst teams that adopt it.
Anyway, I feel like a better 'why you should do this' in order, especially if it is being mandated amongst developers in a company.