Talk:Ruby (programming language)

mruby

matz is working on mruby, a light variant of ruby, a bit similar to lua. Should the main article mention mruby eventually? The link to the github page is at: https://github.com/mruby/mruby I suppose one day mruby may be ready, and then the main article could have a small subsection about mruby. 193.83.131.214 (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Ruby a "C family" programming language?

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_24#Category_talk:C_programming_language_family. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion for the lede: include the fact that Ruby is free

I am fully aware that what goes into the lede is a touchy subject where outsiders are usually wrong. But I went to Wikipedia with the sole purpose of knowing whether Ruby is freely available, something any devotee of open source learning would want to know. I had to go past the lede to learn that Ruby costs nothing. --- Just something to think about. --guyvan52 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I just found the info in the box situated in the lede. I am not qualified to address the question of whether you want to include the word "free" in the first three or four sentences.

Ruby is a programming language. It would be notable to state if a programming language *isn't* free.

Nonsense claim in the metaprogramming section

"To implement the equivalent in many other languages, the programmer would have to write each method (in_black, in_red, in_green, etc.) separately."

That is absurd: I have worked in over a dozen languages, and I can't think of one of them where one would need to write a method per color! In C, for instance, you would write a print_in_color() function, and pass in an array index (e.g., 'BLUE') for which HTML code you wanted to output. This appears to have been written by someone who has not programmed in any language but Ruby. GeneCallahan (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly no fan of Ruby (currently struggling with it for work...) but this claim seems legitimate. The result is that the user can write "in_blue(x)", the fact that blue is chosen is part of the identifier for the function. You are saying "blue" can be passed as an argument to the function but that is different. I would suspect lisp can do this pretty easily, and probably most interpreted languages can do something like this but perhaps using non-portable code specific to a given interpreter.Spitzak (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Version table

Would a version table be useful? If so, where would it be best placed? I would propose at the top of the 'History' section, as that is where the different versions are discussed.

The table may look like this:

Version	Date	End of support
Old version, no longer maintained: 1.9.3	2011-10-31	2015-02-23
Old version, yet still maintained: 2.0.0	2013-02-24
Old version, yet still maintained: 2.1.0	2013-12-25
Current stable version: 2.2.0	2014-12-25
Current stable version: 2.2.3	2015-08-18

Taken and adapted from Template:Version This is just intended as an example and may not contain all required information. Jrmh (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Unicorns are extinct?

Why was Unicorn (web server) deleted? Viam Ferream (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viam Ferream: I don't see what this has to do the *this* page, but the note at the creating page screen says: "05:01, 10 January 2016 Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) deleted page Unicorn (web server) (Expired PROD, concern was: unreferenced software article of unclear notability, tagged as unreferenced since 2014, and created by an SPA as possibly promotional)". Information about PROD's can be found at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. If you have further questions about the deletion, you should ask the deleting admin, Rjd0060 (talk · contribs), on their talk page. Rwessel (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

See Green Unicorn, a Python port of the Unicorn web server for Ruby. I'm not familiar with Ruby or Unicorn, other than as a precursor to Green Unicorn. They both have a weird forking model, so they're ineresting mostly as a different way to design a web server, not for being the most popular web server in use. As I guess youre a Ruby developer, do you have any opinion on whether Unicorn ought to be seen as notable? Viam Ferream (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Unicorn *might* be notable, but I really can't say for sure. The fact that Gunicorn is notable, does not, however, offer evidence that Unicorn is. However "notability" for Wkikipedia is not quite the standard English definition, rather it's as defined by Wikipedia:Notability. And while an essay and not policy, Wikipedia:Notability (software) is good advice to follow. I'm not an admin, so I can't see the deleted article, but the problem is clear from the PROD notice: the article was unsourced (and that state had persisted for over a year), and the notability of the subject was never established. If those fail to happen, the article will be deleted. If you want the article undeleted and userfied (put into your user space so you can work on it), the deleting admin is the person to ask. Add some references and establish notability (and good references will generally do that), and we can move it back to the main space. Rwessel (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think thats one of those "I'd like to read it but I don't know enough to write it" topics. Ruby isn't really my thing. Viam Ferream (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viam Ferream: I created quick stubs to describe the technology stack of popular Ruby web applications like Discourse, Mastodon or Diaspora, and so I covered the Mongrel successors, including Unicorn (web server).

For the notability, there are references, books about Ruby or computer science conference papers, strongly indicating Unicorn was used as the preferred web server before Puma (web server) appears. The stubs are fully sourced.

I'd guess the "weird forking model" is they try to work in a single thread, to avoid any multithreading issues. The popularity seems only a question of usability (they don't ask modification of software or heavy configuration) and performance (benchmarks from Twitter or Deliveroo speaks about requests per seconds). The sources in the Unicorn and Puma article contains some hints about the adoption reasons.

As I'm not a Ruby expert, I'd appreciate if you could review the articles to be sure they're readable. --Dereckson (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruby (programming language). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-4.ibm.com/software/developer/library/ruby.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of old version sections?

I'm not sure what the sections that basically amount to release "cliffnotes" (especially for the versions that are obsolete) add to this page. Is there a reason to include them? The table with version numbers and support status seems like it would suffice. rubah (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep "differences"?

About this edit. Is it bad to show differences? I didn't look over, saying any of them are true (or not).

Just, if language A (Ruby) has for sure some syntax/semantics and some other language B something else, then ok with WP:V? I'm not even sure you need an official spec. comp.arch (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest stable software release template

Can anyone help me clean up the mess I've made trying to use Template:LSR? I've created Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Ruby, but the resulting "+" button on the main Ruby article links to Template:Latest stable software release/Ruby (programming language).

The latter redirects to the former, but I've screwed things up :-(

Scottmacpherson (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Scottmacpherson:, I fixed it. I copied the contents of Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Ruby to Template:Latest stable software release/Ruby (programming language) and then changed in the infobox programming language the parameter name to parameter title. The difference is that parameter name affects the title of infobox and the internal name used in the editing button (+), while the title affects the title of infobox only. This makes the links in the edit button based on the page name. After that, I suggested the deletion of Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Ruby, and it was deleted. read (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

POLA Principle of least astonishment / surprise

The article right now states:

"Matsumoto attempted to distance Ruby from POLA"

But this is historically incorrect. Matz never coined POLS or POLA himself; that was in particular pragdave who coined this.

So when the article claims "attempted to distance ruby from xyz", then this is not historically correct. Matz was not the one who used POLS/POLA; that came from others, so how could he "distance" ruby from it, if ruby never followed POLS or POLA? This is simply inaccurate what the wikipedia article claims right now. Whoever wrote it clearly did not know the history of ruby from matz point of view. It should be reworded. 80.110.94.82 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)