Yes, she did! 
robert
On 15.05.2011 14:57, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 05/15/11 22:00, Robert Klemme wrote:
there are still Cobol coders around. I just
yesterday talked to one in person.ahh, but did s/he answer you?
(ref to Wayne and Shuster)
--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
It depends. We (Engine Yard) employ several people for whom Ruby
related work is their daily bread and butter, but those people do not
spend their days writing Rails apps.
Kirk Haines
Software Guy
Engine Yard
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
From what I've seen, Rails is a primary job skill sought by employers.
Ruby without Rails, however, seems to be just a "bonus", if employers
notice it at all.
I agree, but only in the sense that there are some fantastic tools[1]
out there which abstract things and present an alternate syntax.
Variety is demanded when people disagree strongly on the use of a
single tool. But if that single tool has a way of being used
differently by those different people, then less people will disagree,
and less strongly.
[1] The one example that comes to mind is http://jquery.com/
On Tue, 17 May 2011 06:20:54 +0900 Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:
My prediction? Javascript eventually kills the other dynamic languages
in the web development arena. Why use two languages when you can use
one?
Seeing that I was referring to UNIX shell scripting I don't see how
this applies.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 15, 1:25 pm, Stu <s...@rubyprogrammer.net> wrote:
Python and Ruby are pretty much in the same boat. Python won't be the
Ruby killer.My prediction? Javascript eventually kills the other dynamic languages
in the web development arena. Why use two languages when you can use
one?Regards,
Dan
. . . just as soon as a new version of JavaScript that doesn't include
some of those seriously sucky characteristics that make JavaScript
painful to use sometimes is released to the world.
No . . . I don't think JavaScript will kill Ruby and/or Python, except
perhaps within limited constraints.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 06:20:54AM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:
My prediction? Javascript eventually kills the other dynamic languages
in the web development arena. Why use two languages when you can use
one?
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Sorry, but this argument just does NOT count (for me). It's leads to the question: Why develop something new?
The is no language, which can to everything to the utmost satisfaction of every programmer. This will NOT happen.
In contrast every language has areas, where is works fine and others which are tricky to handle with. Even if you stick to web-development (which is itself a large area), JS is not ... let's say that well suited from a programmers point of view. I'd love to see a beautifully designed language like Ruby doing client side web-programming. The other thing is taste: I personally don't like the idea of giving space such a meaning in a programming language. That's one of the reasons, I dislike about Python.
Or in other words: Did we really need a dynamic language after PERL? The answer is YES, isn't it?
cheers
ralf
On 05/16/2011 11:20 PM, Daniel Berger wrote:
On May 15, 1:25 pm, Stu<s...@rubyprogrammer.net> wrote:
Python and Ruby are pretty much in the same boat. Python won't be the
Ruby killer.My prediction? Javascript eventually kills the other dynamic languages
in the web development arena. Why use two languages when you can use
one?
'sides, when keeping methods short and sweet, you don't lose track of
the end of your method. Losing track of the end is a code smell, I'd
say.
Excuse the puns, which were only partially unintentional.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
I have no problem locating a missing "end". In fact, the "end"s make it
easier to track nesting, at least for me. So, speaking only for myself,
yeah . . . I do think they're "better".
--
Phillip Gawlowski
Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I've moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I've played and passed through,
Who'll remember my song or my face.
I think that kind of canonical generalization isn't strictly true, *especially* if you work with lambdas or heavy algorithms. I'm a huge fan of abstraction, especially in Ruby and Lisp, but to say that code should never be nested this much is (by my standards) not a good generalization.
On Tuesday, 17 May 2011 at 10:05 pm, Steve Klabnik wrote:
If you have more than two or three ends, your code sucks. It's a feature,
not a bug.
Op 16-5-2011 23:49, spiralofhope schreef:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 06:20:54 +0900 > Daniel Berger<djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:
My prediction? Javascript eventually kills the other dynamic languages
in the web development arena. Why use two languages when you can use
one?I agree, but only in the sense that there are some fantastic tools[1]
out there which abstract things and present an alternate syntax.Variety is demanded when people disagree strongly on the use of a
single tool. But if that single tool has a way of being used
differently by those different people, then less people will disagree,
and less strongly.[1] The one example that comes to mind is http://jquery.com/
I disagree with Daniel. Program languages cannot be predicted. Distrust anyone who claims to know the programming language future, however dimly.
If astrology worked, all astrologers would be rich.
Thiel Chang
I have two questions:
1. Did you hire them for their Ruby-not-Rails skills, or hire them for
their Ruby on Rails skills and end up putting them to work with Ruby that
is not attached to Rails?
2. Do you know of any other businesses that hire people for Ruby skills
that aren't related to Rails and are *not* basically the Google of Ruby
employers?
Of all the job postings I've noticed that mention Ruby in job
requirements, 100% of them also mention Rails.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 05:31:11AM +0900, Kirk Haines wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
>
> From what I've seen, Rails is a primary job skill sought by employers.
> Ruby without Rails, however, seems to be just a "bonus", if employers
> notice it at all.It depends. We (Engine Yard) employ several people for whom Ruby
related work is their daily bread and butter, but those people do not
spend their days writing Rails apps.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
I'd love to see a beautifully designed language like Ruby doing client side
web-programming.
Well, not exactly what you want, but take a look at http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/
Regards,
Rimantas
If you want to equate 15 years of experience, job trending and tech trending to astrology, sure.
Regards,
Dan
On 5/16/11 4:17 PM, Thiel Chang wrote:
Op 16-5-2011 23:49, spiralofhope schreef:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 06:20:54 +0900 >> Daniel Berger<djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:
My prediction? Javascript eventually kills the other dynamic languages
in the web development arena. Why use two languages when you can use
one?I agree, but only in the sense that there are some fantastic tools[1]
out there which abstract things and present an alternate syntax.Variety is demanded when people disagree strongly on the use of a
single tool. But if that single tool has a way of being used
differently by those different people, then less people will disagree,
and less strongly.[1] The one example that comes to mind is http://jquery.com/
I disagree with Daniel. Program languages cannot be predicted. Distrust
anyone who claims to know the programming language future, however dimly.
If astrology worked, all astrologers would be rich.
1) Yes. For some jobs, the Ruby is what is important, not the Rails.
2) I don't know because I have not been job hunting for quite a while, but I
am confident that there are. Those jobs are certainly a minority, but they
are not a fantasy.
Kirk Haines
Engine Yard
On May 17, 2011 1:37 AM, "Chad Perrin" <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 05:31:11AM +0900, Kirk Haines wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
>
> From what I've seen, Rails is a primary job skill sought by employers.
> Ruby without Rails, however, seems to be just a "bonus", if employers
> notice it at all.It depends. We (Engine Yard) employ several people for whom Ruby
related work is their daily bread and butter, but those people do not
spend their days writing Rails apps.I have two questions:
1. Did you hire them for their Ruby-not-Rails skills, or hire them for
their Ruby on Rails skills and end up putting them to work with Ruby that
is not attached to Rails?2. Do you know of any other businesses that hire people for Ruby skills
that aren't related to Rails and are *not* basically the Google of Ruby
employers?Of all the job postings I've noticed that mention Ruby in job
requirements, 100% of them also mention Rails.--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
1) Yes. For some jobs, the Ruby is what is important, not the Rails.
Awesome. That's one!
2) I don't know because I have not been job hunting for quite a while, but I
am confident that there are. Those jobs are certainly a minority, but they
are not a fantasy.
I haven't seen any -- but then, I haven't been watching EngineYard job
postings.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:28:32PM +0900, Kirk Haines wrote:
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
