> it’s quite rough and simple, with almost no distinctive visual style

Sounds like how they typically design their services, which I like. It's easy to the eyes

I quite like the ASCII art animation from DevDay.

Your example is Rspec, a testing framework for Ruby, not everyone enjoys it

Here's with Minitest (part of std)

    it "adds two numbers" do
      calc = Calculator.new
      assert_equal 5, calc.add(2, 3)
    end

If you want even closer to yours, the following works just fine

    assert calc.add(2, 3) == 5

Better?

And also RBS-inline if you want Jsdoc style typing

Wow I hadn't seen this before. Pretty neat, thanks. Hope this project really takes off and gains more support

No worries, I also think it deserves a bit more highlight, especially to those who are against having rbs as separate file and to those who despise the Sorbet DSL in Ruby. The plan with Rbs-inline is to merge with rbs-gem so it will come included in Rbs!

Reading the comment section makes it difficult to take America seriously, no way people live with these conditions? And I just learned a new word, plutocracy.

It does look like it but procs encapsulates a block, but a block alone is not a proc

That’s just a performance optimization because blocks are typically only invoked, not passed or otherwise manipulated. If you want to do anything with the block, you pay a tiny tax and have a Proc instance.

To an outsider watching Ruby, it's cryptic, esoteric and maybe magical. But when you actually use it and learn mechanism underneath it, things start to make sense. However, Rubys dynamic architecture have also made it difficult for DX. Things like autocomplete barely works in the ecosystem, because it's so unpredictable until runtime

I believe the underlying behaviour of Ruby blocks is one of those mechanics that isn't talked about that much for newcomers, they just get used to how Ruby code look like when they see Rails, Cucumber or RSpec

Blocks and method_missing is one of those things in Ruby is what makes it so powerful! I remember watching a talk where someone was able to run JS snippets on pure Ruby just by recreating the syntax. That proves how powerful Ruby is for creating your own DSL

It's also a double edged sword and something you have to be careful with on collaborative codebases. Always prefer simplicity and readability over exotic and neat tricks, but I understand the difficulty when you have access to such a powerful tool

IMO blocks are not something to be careful about in ruby. If you don’t use blocks you are the weirdo in this language.

Method missing is a different beast altogether. I would probably avoid it nowadays.

There are legitimate uses of method_missing (though often you'd want to call define_method dynamically instead for performance), but they tend to be when you use an object as a proxy for something (say a remote API) where you genuinely can't know the set of messages the object might need to be able to receive.

I think because of this, which started this whole thing

> Shopify demanded that Ruby Central take full control of the RubyGems

https://joel.drapper.me/p/rubygems-takeover

This isn't true according to this article: https://www.404media.co/how-ruby-went-off-the-rails/. Joel has a terrible habit of not citing his sources so I'm not sure if the post in question is the same but this seems to nullify that argument. TBF I do think there was pressure from Shopify to get compliance and security in order but saying "Shopify demanded that Ruby Central take full control of the RubyGems" is just plain not true.

Ruby Central is making legal threats to its critics, so I hope you can see why people don’t feel safe to come forward on the record.

I can tell you that two people with direct knowledge of the situation told me that Shopify demanded that Ruby Central take full control of the RubyGems GitHub organisation and packages.

You can believe that I am lying if you want. But I can’t directly cite my sources in this case.

I never said you were lying. I said the quote that person pulled from your article isn't true. IIRC your article came out before the one I linked came out.

I believe the quote pulled from my article is true. Freedom’s original article lines up with what other people told me. I know he’s tried to retract it, but I don’t trust him to be truthful in this matter. He has lied about other things like the takeover being necessary for security.

> Compile times: A one-line change could easily take >10 seconds to compile in dev, constantly shattering flow.

Has anyone else experienced this? I've mostly read comments on how good Elixir is and if you are a Rails user you will only benefit more from Elixir. This is a bit surprising

for a very large graphql api maybe? I've seen long compiles with a combo of Absinthe, Phoenix, and Elm. Also if you are not a little careful about dependency cycles it can get messy. It is an easy thing to check in CI via mix xref graph --format cycles --fail-above

Ah yeah great callout, that's very plausible. We used Absinthe heavily to power our GraphQL API.

Not remotely. Maybe I'm just not working on big enough projects, but I've never experienced any frustration at all with Elixir compile times.

Nope. I also worked on a Startup with a Full Phoenix LiveView Experience. Codebase was around 300k-400k lines of code and compilation was blazing fast. I would say they have a lot of circular dependencies if they are experiencing that.

> One of the superpowers of MMTk is that it supports parallelism in the garbage collector. Unlike Ruby’s default garbage collector

Wow

"Wow" as in "why doesn't Ruby have that already" or as in "parallelism will be great"? :-)

When we say "Ruby" doesn't have parallel GC we're really just talking about MRI cRuby.

Both the JRuby and TruffleRuby implemenations have had parellel GC for a very long time.

I think Peter Zhu work on cRuby has been brilliant here and is really appreciated.