Is there really an impending Ruby fracture???

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Well ... I've been home from RubyConf for a day now. I sort of expected
someone would have spotted this and commented on it (here) by now, but
they haven't. In any event, I came away from the conference with a
completely different view of the state of Ruby than David Pollak
apparently did.

https://www.lostlake.org/blog/index.php?/archives/11-The-Impending-Ruby-Fracture.html

M. Edward "That Guy" Borasky

 

[benjohn]

Well ... I've been home from RubyConf for a day now. I sort of expected

someone would have spotted this and commented on it (here) by now, but
they haven't. In any event, I came away from the conference with a
completely different view of the state of Ruby than David Pollak
apparently did.

https://www.lostlake.org/blog/index.php?/archives/11-The-Impending-Ruby-Fracture.html

I wasn't there, but I've posted a comment to the blog in response to
enterprises not being important.

Summary - regardless of whether you want to get them involved, they're
definitely worth learning from. Enterprises are large groups of people,
and they want to use computers to help the people in them communicate
effectively - they want "joined up data". This is what I want from
computers too. I want to be able to play and program and do lovely
things, but I want to be able to share that: share my data and everyone
else's just as if it was sitting in my process, and make use of every
piece of data and code without a bump. I want global objects, and
enterprises are spending billions on solving that for me, which is nice.

 

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

I wasn't there, but I've posted a comment to the blog in response to
enterprises not being important.

Summary - regardless of whether you want to get them involved, they're
definitely worth learning from. Enterprises are large groups of people,
and they want to use computers to help the people in them communicate
effectively - they want "joined up data". This is what I want from
computers too. I want to be able to play and program and do lovely
things, but I want to be able to share that: share my data and everyone
else's just as if it was sitting in my process, and make use of every
piece of data and code without a bump. I want global objects, and
enterprises are spending billions on solving that for me, which is nice.

I don't know where you live, but here in the USA, there's a backlash to
all that "enterprisey joining of data". My snail mailbox is packed to
the brim with mail I don't want because someone "joined" my name and
address, credit rating, salary range, etc. and wasted precious natural
resources informing me of "opportunities" that I will *never* investigate.

Right now, the big deal is compliance with privacy and security
legislation. If Rails wants to be a killer app, they had damn well
better have ironclad solutions for those problems in addition to being
able to build a todo-list app in five minutes with one hand tied behind
the developer's back.

And yes, I *am* beating up on Rails. It's official. See

http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/2006/10/top-five-open-source-projects-of-2006.html

 

[benjohn]

I don't know where you live, but here in the USA, there's a backlash to
all that "enterprisey joining of data". My snail mailbox is packed to
the brim with mail I don't want because someone "joined" my name and
address, credit rating, salary range, etc. and wasted precious natural
resources informing me of "opportunities" that I will *never*
investigate.

Totally, dude! The problem here is that the joining isn't pervasive
though (no, scratch that, scary word). In "my world" you'd easily be
able to ignore these twits sending you rubbish, because you just
wouldn't look at that data.

Hopefully, some other people would also be able to employ the data
arround in a more cluefull way, and would then find that they could work
out that you're actually interested in x and might want to chat to other
poeple about it (sussex local folk music, perhaps). You'd hear their
suggestion because it would have come with a good reference from another
group of people that you like because in the past, they've been very
effective at only passing on things that interest you.

*snip*

 

[Trans]

Well ... I've been home from RubyConf for a day now. I sort of expected
someone would have spotted this and commented on it (here) by now, but
they haven't. In any event, I came away from the conference with a
completely different view of the state of Ruby than David Pollak
apparently did.

https://www.lostlake.org/blog/index.php?/archives/11-The-Impending-Ruby-Fracture.html

"At the core, I think Ruby is defined by Rails. Sooner or later, the
Rails guys will realize they're the dog and start finding a tail that's
easier to wag for the customers with lots of money. That will likely
lead to fractured Ruby syntax and fractured Ruby dialects."

Now there's a statement to reckonwith.

T.

 

[Rimantas Liubertas]

"At the core, I think Ruby is defined by Rails. Sooner or later, the

Rails guys will realize they're the dog and start finding a tail that's
easier to wag for the customers with lots of money. That will likely
lead to fractured Ruby syntax and fractured Ruby dialects."

Am I the only one failing to see any sense in this?

 

[Brad Tilley]

Am I the only one failing to see any sense in this?

Seems to be reversed to me. I see it the other way around.

 

[Ken Bloom]

Well ... I've been home from RubyConf for a day now. I sort of expected
someone would have spotted this and commented on it (here) by now, but
they haven't. In any event, I came away from the conference with a
completely different view of the state of Ruby than David Pollak
apparently did.

https://www.lostlake.org/blog/index.php?/archives/11-The-Impending-Ruby-Fracture.html

M. Edward "That Guy" Borasky

"Evan Phoenix is a sys-admin turned hard-core programmer. He has been
working on a Ruby runtime in the spirit of a Smalltalk runtime called
Rubeneus."

Where is there information about this?

 

[Paul Battley]

"At the core, I think Ruby is defined by Rails. Sooner or later, the
Rails guys will realize they're the dog and start finding a tail that's
easier to wag for the customers with lots of money. That will likely
lead to fractured Ruby syntax and fractured Ruby dialects."

Now there's a statement to reckonwith.

In a sense, the Rails tail has already begun to wag the Ruby dog.
According to Matz:

'With the spread of ActiveSupport, the need to handle symbols and
strings similarly seems to be increasing.'

The original statement in Japanese is here:
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-dev/29507

Paul.

 

[Paul Battley]

"Evan Phoenix is a sys-admin turned hard-core programmer. He has been
working on a Ruby runtime in the spirit of a Smalltalk runtime called
Rubeneus."

Where is there information about this?

http://blog.nicksieger.com/articles/2006/10/20/rubyconf-sydney-and-rubinius
http://blog.fallingsnow.net/
http://blog.zenspider.com/archives/2006/10/evan_phoenix_and_rubinius_has_a_bloghome.html
http://redhanded.hobix.com/cult/evanSLittleRubyDuneBuggyIsInTheGarage.html

Paul.

 

[James Edward Gray II]

Well ... I've been home from RubyConf for a day now. I sort of
expected
someone would have spotted this and commented on it (here) by now, but
they haven't. In any event, I came away from the conference with a
completely different view of the state of Ruby than David Pollak
apparently did.

https://www.lostlake.org/blog/index.php?/archives/11-The-Impending-
Ruby-Fracture.html

From the article:

...Ruby.Net (Ruby that runs on the .Net VM, 1 full time coder
who was recently hired by Microsoft)...

Is this accurate? The parenthetical refers to the Ruby CLR guy, John
Lam, that gave a talk. I wasn't clear if this was the same project
that Ani was referring to as Ruby on .Net.

Also:

Matz has said that 1.9 would run native threads (rather
than the current green threads) but YARV will ship with
green threads because it's too difficult to maintain
compatibility with all the C extensions that have been
written for green threads.

That's not true. Koichi said that YARV will use native threads with
a giant VM lock as Python does in his talk. These are not green
threads.

Finally:

At the core, I think Ruby is defined by Rails.

I couldn't disagree more.

James Edward Gray II

 

[Paul Battley]

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.

- George Bernhard Shaw

I'm sure it's just a typo, but your misspelling of Shaw's name amused
me, given his views on English spelling!

Paul.

 

[pat eyler]

From the article:

...Ruby.Net (Ruby that runs on the .Net VM, 1 full time coder
who was recently hired by Microsoft)...

Is this accurate? The parenthetical refers to the Ruby CLR guy, John
Lam, that gave a talk. I wasn't clear if this was the same project
that Ani was referring to as Ruby on .Net.

Also:

Matz has said that 1.9 would run native threads (rather
than the current green threads) but YARV will ship with
green threads because it's too difficult to maintain
compatibility with all the C extensions that have been
written for green threads.

That's not true. Koichi said that YARV will use native threads with
a giant VM lock as Python does in his talk. These are not green
threads.

The article had _many_ factual errors:

* he miscounted the number of projects, the number of people
working on the projects, and (in at least one case) what those
people are focusing on.
* he mischaracterized matz's comment about 1.8 vs 1.9
* he spends a fair amount of time fear-mongering based on
rather ungrounded opinions.

Many, but not all, of these errors have been pointed out here
or at his blog. In general, I think the various Ruby
implementations and their communities are all very interested
in working together and developing toward a common spec
and set of tests.

Instead of fragmenting, I think the larger Ruby community
(and language) are coming together.

Finally:

At the core, I think Ruby is defined by Rails.

I couldn't disagree more.

I'm siding with James on this one.

 

[pat eyler]

How much I wished that you were right, it is so logical, so clearcut, we
are the language they are the application. Well on theoretical ground you
are so 1000% right, when I feel that way, things often turn out otherwise,
are you not afraid of that at all?

Quoth DHH:
"The people LEAST interested in Ruby 1.9 is the Rails core guys.
In a lot of ways, I couldn't care less. Ruby 1.8 is more than good
enough. There's no urgent need for Ruby 1.9. The ability to adorn
Ruby 1.8 with ActiveSupport is pretty much all we need."

you can read the rest at:
http://www.infoq.com/news/how-many-rubies-future

So, no, I'm not terribly worried. I'm more worried that the Rails
community will continue to create user groups without realizing
that there's already a Ruby brigade in the area, or that people
will continue to flock to Rails without reailizing the gem of a
language that's hiding beneath the surface. But those are a
whole different kind of problem.

 

[Luciano Ramalho]

I came out of RubyConf thinking that a fork in Ruby is a real
possibility, and considering whether or not to blog about it. Even
talking about a fork is very dangerous for any open source project,
especially one that is aiming and mainstream acceptance.

It seems the "enterprise" users are pressuring for language evolution
at a faster pace than the core team can provide right now, but
everyone must bear in mind the effects of excessive pressure.

Think sustainability: what are the costs behind any benefit?

Matz had wise words about this, to the effect that what we have right
now is excellent and not broken in any major way, so what is the
hurry? I think we have time for careful consideration and wise
decisions.

My greatest hope is that the different implementing groups will
collaborate with each other to solve the difficult technical and
political problems that lie ahead.

If anyone thinks a fork would be a good idea, they should read The
Wealth of Networks, by Yochai Benkler. Corporate sponsors brag very
loudly about their contributions, but the fact is most of the work in
open source is done by the community at large, and even the
productivity of paid contributors depends on the fact that they
believe they are doing the right thing, and get timely help from the
right people.

People conected by good will is the most powerful resource we have for
sustaining open source projects.

This has been my first RubyConf and I really enjoyed meeting the
community behind this fantastic language.

Cheers,

Luciano

 

[Karl von Laudermann]

I came out of RubyConf thinking that a fork in Ruby is a real
possibility, and considering whether or not to blog about it. Even
talking about a fork is very dangerous for any open source project,
especially one that is aiming and mainstream acceptance.

Multiple interpreters for a language doesn't necessarily mean that the
language itself will fork. Look at C, for example; there are tons of C
compilers, that all compile the same language. Then again, there is an
ANSI standard C spec. Maybe Ruby could benefit from becoming
standardized at some point in the future? If there eventually exist a
ton of Ruby interpreters/VMs(/compilers?) all implementing the same
standard, this can only help Ruby the language, not hurt it.

 

[pat eyler]

Multiple interpreters for a language doesn't necessarily mean that the
language itself will fork. Look at C, for example; there are tons of C
compilers, that all compile the same language. Then again, there is an
ANSI standard C spec. Maybe Ruby could benefit from becoming
standardized at some point in the future? If there eventually exist a
ton of Ruby interpreters/VMs(/compilers?) all implementing the same
standard, this can only help Ruby the language, not hurt it.

A spec is in progress, see
http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/10/rubyconf-2006-implementers-summit.html
and
http://www.headius.com/rubyspec
(the latter seems to be down right now though)


And you're right, a spec (and a common test suite) will be a big factor
in holding all the various Ruby implementations together. That's why I'm
so excited that these are two things the implementors summit focused
on.

 

[James Britt]

Am I the only one failing to see any sense in this?

No.

The premise is untrue; Ruby is defined by Matz.


--
James Britt

"The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with
computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity."
- Edsger W. Dijkstra

 

[James Britt]

...
So, no, I'm not terribly worried. I'm more worried that the Rails
community will continue to create user groups without realizing
that there's already a Ruby brigade in the area, or that people
will continue to flock to Rails without reailizing the gem of a
language that's hiding beneath the surface. But those are a
whole different kind of problem.

If there is fracturing, it is with the Ruby as Rails point of view.

My experience is that some people will prefer to start a Rails group
rather than attend an known, existing Ruby group because they are more
interested in learning the correct incantations to run Capistrano than
in understanding how Capistrano works.

For some, Rails is a nicer PHP or VB; Ruby per se is not of interest to
them. (Which is fine, unless or until Ruby discussions or gatherings
are dominated by application development monoculture.)


--
James Britt

"The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with
computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity."
- Edsger W. Dijkstra

 

[Giles Bowkett]

If there is fracturing, it is with the Ruby as Rails point of view.

My experience is that some people will prefer to start a Rails group
rather than attend an known, existing Ruby group because they are more
interested in learning the correct incantations to run Capistrano than
in understanding how Capistrano works.

For some, Rails is a nicer PHP or VB; Ruby per se is not of interest to
them. (Which is fine, unless or until Ruby discussions or gatherings
are dominated by application development monoculture.)

Rails brought me to Ruby, along with tons of other people, but I've
seen very marked differences between the Ruby and Rails cultures.

I think the idea of "an impending fracture" reeks of alarmism, but it
would be delusional not to think a cultural shift of some kind was
taking place. Ruby books outsell Perl and Python books now, and that
certainly wasn't true a very short time ago. Ruby's identity is
guaranteed to change as a result of the Rails boom, both for better
and for worse.

Obviously I can't complain. As someone who only came to Ruby because
of Rails in the first place, I don't know what it was like before the
newbies got here, since I am one. I can say I prefer the Ruby
community, but to be fair, for me personally, the only thing really
annoying about Rails is that I have so much work I don't have any time
to learn Smalltalk and Seaside. I've certainly faced worse downsides
than that, when dealing with other technologies.