Comments on: Is JavaScript becoming a Ruby killer?

By: Olli

Olli — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:30:25 +0000

Two and a half year later – nothing changed.

By: scriptrunner

scriptrunner — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:10:24 +0000

I’ve already had a potential server-side javascript gig (Persevere, jslibs) come up. I love Ruby and JS equally – I’m hopeful and excited about the prospect.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:18:37 +0000

Maybe this wouldn’t matter if someone comes up with a strong Ruby-to-Javascript framework like how GWT bridged the gap between Java and Javascript?

By: rubyist

rubyist — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:09:44 +0000

I am an avid fan of ruby who had to deal with javascript recently. I am personally not a big gui guy, I use ruby to write server side or adhoc command line apps.
I think ruby and JS won’t compete. They address 2 different audience I think. I could never imagine myself writing long ugly JS code to do the things I use ruby for on the command line. Ruby’s syntax is much too powerful.
Also I am not buying the whole rich client side app with a ‘thin server’ thing. If everything on the web turns to that model, then we are back to more client side computing than the all new ‘everything lives in the cloud’. I agree that we should try to leverage the processing power on our machines but we simply aren’t going to install a ‘web app’ for everything so server side web development are unlikely to disappear as fast as some may think.
I could partially agree with ‘web developers spend a lot of time using javascript on the client side’. Sure it makes sense to try to reuse your code and save yourself time javascript is such a waste of time. It really reminds me of java, how you have to write long ass code to do simple bloody things.
What I wish for is that someone writes a ruby interpreter in JS so I don’t have to use this yucky language anymore.

By: Dev Blog AF83 » Blog Archive » HTML5, Javascript, les User-Agent, l’élite des développeurs

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:30:51 +0000

[...] http://blog.jaoo.dk/2008/09/11/is-javascript-a-ruby-killer/ : Javascript, le langage qui va tuer Ruby ? [...]

By: Nick Campbell

Nick Campbell — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:18:03 +0000

Nice post. I think Ruby has it’s place as does Python and other languages. Really, the languages are tools. What I find nice about JS is that I can use the same language on both the client and server-side so I don’t have to shift language contexts as much when I do code.

I work for a company called Axiom Software and we’ve created a SSJS framework, the Axiom Stack (http://www.axiomstack.com). It’s based on Helma (http://www.helma.org). Both of these are based on Rhino and personally I agree with what Pete said above. It’s great to watch JS and Java interact.

By: dwight

dwight — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:40:15 +0000

Ruby, Javascript, Python are all dynamically typed object oriented languages which support closures: to some degree, the differences will be personal preference on syntax. I think all three have a bright future on the server, javascript being the one where that is turning out to be a surprise.

http://www.10gen.com/blog/2008/7/why-javascript-

By: John Goodwin

John Goodwin — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:19:51 +0000

The lesson of the ‘Chrome’ browser is that the server is going to move to the client. Google Gears puts a ‘lite’ version of Google’s server paradigm at the clientside’s fingertips, so the developer can have not only asynchronous callbacks, but a task queue in a separate process.

The new paradigm — we might as well call it “Thin Server” — of BigTable, map reduce (or Hadoop), a Condor-like task queue, GQL or Yahoo! Pig Latin, and a Gear’s style LocalServer or managed cache — essentially replicates the server-side paradigm that Ruby has thrived in on the client-side.

On the client side, JavaScript is both the language of choice and (for the new paradigm) a problem to solve.

It’s early days yet, for this new “Thin Server” paradigm and its client-side replicate, but if Ruby wants to thrive, it needs to figure out where it fits in.

By: Ivan

Ivan — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:15:17 +0000

I’m betting big on Javascript, I think Ruby is def on the temporary side. Let’s see, one language is already on a zillion desktops and handhelds across the world, and the other is known for Rails.

Js can be messy, but it’s ultimately a specification driven language that features expressive programming and a very low barrier to entry. That satisfies the senior and the junior devs/managers-and guess what? You HAVE to learn it since its on every browser. You don’t HAVE to learn Ruby.

It’s going places.

By: CC

CC — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:23:02 +0000

Re: the comments about readability and the look of javascript, especially the {} – whilst these do decrease first-time readability the huge power they enable many times out-weigh any downside, they define object literals and are HUGELY powerful, hell, why do you think JSON is so nice and simple and powerful. It’s the same argument that people make about the parentheses in Lisp, yes they look weird at first (and at first are annoying to type) but the amazing power given by these soon outweigh any negatives.

By: 7rans

7rans — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:13:04 +0000

While Javascript will be a dominant language, it still does not compare with the readability of Ruby. Now, if Javascript got rid of all those { }’s and ;’s and added blocks, then I might start to wonder. Funny how such simple things can make such a big difference.

Also, 1.9 is not that different from 1.8. There are really only a fews changes that make it a major (non-backward compatible) transition.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:15:42 +0000

You can mix JS and Java on Rhino. It’s pretty amazing watching them interact.

By: ROR

ROR — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:10:59 +0000

… bet Seaside can kill Ruby earlier

By: ROR

ROR — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:10:10 +0000

After playing with RoR and Seaside (www.seaside.st) I would

By: markus

markus — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:37:12 +0000

I forgot to add two things:

1) Personally I think both ruby and javascript share a very “prototype based object oriented approach”

I think pure prototypes that can be very flexible, can capture behaviour from other prototype objects etc… will be a better thought model than the old OOP with classes (in C# it is so strict and annoying to use compared to Ruby.. but unfortunately ruby is also neither pure prototypes with functional behaviour snatching)

2) ABout the cleaniness of syntax – I really mean it. Languages need to empower people, not the other way around. We have so fast machines, they become faster and faster. Why not make OUR time better as well?

For whenever speed is really needed, people will use compiled C code anyway etc…

But for the other area, the joy for programmers, why not make their life better? This is why visual programming was a good idea – create stuff by thinking, modelling etc.. without writing “int foo[22];” or memcpy-crap