Talk:Ruby (programming language)

Let us include at least one pointer to a good Programming language reference

I call your attention to the fact that currently the expression "language reference" is not present on the page. It is nice to read tutorials and getting started guides, but the point comes when you want to get down to serious business. Then you need a language reference. Matz knows this and he wrote one - last modified: Mon Feb 23 16:01:41 1998.

• ruby-doc.org is of course OK, but is not easy, it does not have a good table of contents.
• Ruby Programming wikibook is better, but somewhat outdated.
• The Ruby Reference is my best bet for this currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.245.81.11 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Your best bet", and the first thing on that site is a link requesting money donations. Looks like link spam, so no. Fbergo (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• You are a good hunter of those... I never noticed it without you pointing out. BTW Wikipedia has an equally unobtrusive Donate link on the sidebar... so what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.245.81.13 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2020 (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Old version, no longer maintained: 1.9.3	2011-10-31	2015-02-23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)

I see we have a Ruby (programming_language)#Table of versions which was added 24 January 2016 by User:V975. Looks good. -- Harry Wood (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I'm pretty sure that, per WP:NOTCHANGELOG, the table of versions isn't suitable for inclusion in the article. I have since removed it. If I missed something or if the table is vital to the article, feel free to revert. Moon motif (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTCHANGELOG is about 'Exhaustive logs of software updates". A version history table is not a changelog and not exhaustive.

It connects together the release date of an version and its deprecation, which are generally years apart in diverse changelogs and news. That information is relevant for instance when investigating dependencies between different softwares.

The table has been appropriately moved to History of Ruby. V975 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2024 (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)

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)

Important Question

Why can't I find anything about furigana in this article? I've read some, but still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.2.144 (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Because the subject of this article is completely unrelated to Ruby character. A link for that is in the disambiguation page on the very top of the article. Fbergo (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ruby (programming language" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ruby (programming language and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Ruby (programming language until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh yerrrp 2600:1702:21E0:4110:6C92:3F59:5093:54E6 (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

New alternative implementation

Artichoke is a Ruby implementation written in Rust. --Keyacom (💬 | 🖊) 21:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)