I'm so glad that you said this and weren't downvoted into the ground. Honestly, Ruby needs to die. It performs like a go cart in a Formula 1 race. I'm actually just exhausted watching smart people tell me this is a language and toolchain worth dedicating brain cells to.
What a bizarre take. Ruby is primarily used in web applications, where round-trip http requests, database queries, and other 10s-of-ms things are commonplace. Ruby is very rarely the bottleneck in these applications. Choosing to make your job significantly more challenging in order to maximize the performance of a small portion of the total response time of a web application is not, in my estimation, a smart decision.
There's always this rift between the "language is slow" crowd and the "but it's not the bottleneck" crowd. I think this comes from the types of applications you work on and their scale.
I work at what a company that's not particularly large. Our original API is a Django monolith that serves about 1000req/s.
While you could argue Python isn't the bottleneck, Django often is. I hear the same feedback from colleagues that work in Rails. Not only do we run into issues with latency per request but we have to run a significant number of Kubernetes pods to serve this workload. With c#, golang, java or a similar language we would only require a handful of pods and drastically cut our compute costs.
Even for web workloads, these slow interpreted languages and their developer experience optimized frameworks absolutely do become a bottleneck and claiming they don't (or that you need to be at Google/Facebook scale before they do) is false.
Everything is a tradeoff but the way I think of it: speed is a feature.
Further, with a lot of the batteries-included web frameworks you end up with a ton of suboptimal database queries (e.g. unintentional query-in-loop). Some would argue that you can just profile your code and optimize the hot spots, but I would tend to think it still slows you down quite a bit overall.
One of the biggest breaking changes that EF Core did was to explicitly disallow such generated queries that required application-side evaluation and could not get compiled to pure SQL (you can get other behavior back with a toggle but it is discouraged).
I strongly believe it is wrong to do otherwise and is a source of numerous footguns unless you invest in tracking them down.
I will admit I'm behind the state of the art with EF, but I switched to dapper in the early days of dotnet core and never looked back. It gets out of my way so I can properly utilize postgres' advanced features like jsonb while cutting out a lot of the boilerplate associated with hand-rolled queries.
Dapper is great. I'm very happy that there now exists an AOT-supporting flavour of it too: https://aot.dapperlib.dev/
As for EF Core - it very good as of today (has it ever been bad?). You can transparently compose your queries with `context.FromSql(...).SingleAsync()` which will use string interpolation API to consume your plain $"SELECT * FROM {myTable} ..." and make it injection-safe and transform passed arguments as appropriate. It's quite handy.
You're literally the exact person I'm talking about. No serious application developer who's interested in speed is working in Ruby. This isn't my opinion. I don't care personally, it's just a fact if you care about reality. When Netflix announces that they use Ruby because it performs faster than Node.js, I'll change my opinion, because my opinion is based on facts and not feelings. I didn't make Ruby, so whether it does well or fails isn't personally important to me. If Ruby was the fastest interpreter, I'd be pro-Ruby but it absolutely isn't and pretending it is is depressing and shows you are making political or selfish decisions, not practical ones.
Most of your comment is about what you think I think, and not a lot about metrics, data or examples where Ruby performs beyond my interpretation. I think that says a lot right there.
Nobody is pretending Ruby is the fastest interpreter. Who are you arguing against? Rubyists generally consider Ruby “fast enough”. Which it is, for many applications.
For every engineer insisting Ruby is fast enough in a situation where it is not, there are 1000s in environments where Ruby absolutely is more than sufficient, insisting it’s too slow.
It doesn't answer the question of why you would choose Ruby. Honestly, you all sound like you got a Sega Genesis for Christmas, while everyone else got a SNES. You can tell other kids on the playground that Genesis has better graphics, but the spec sheets don't lie.
You're trying to make it seem like it's a wash, because "scripted" but it's not. Node.js outperforms Ruby in every department. And it's based on one of the slowest scripting languages of all time. Ruby is a dead language in many countries.
In Canada, you would have to travel the country to find a Ruby job. And if you don't think in American-centric terms, that is meaningful.
Fine analogy. Plenty of people liked the Sega Genesis more than the SNES. (I think a more apt analogy is more contemporary consoles, where the lowly-spec’d Nintendo competes just fine against the competition’s higher performance units. People like Nintendo for reasons other than the spec sheet.)
I enjoy writing Ruby a heck of a lot more than I do writing JavaScript. I like the object model. I like Ruby’s standard library. I like the Ruby community. I like the tooling: irb is fantastic. Bundler is still one of the best package managers around—makes npm and yarn look silly by comparison.
The spec sheet just does not matter for virtually any of my work. Switching to a less enjoyable, more performant, language might make a 60ms response time average become 55ms. Who cares? That performance difference was even bigger 15 years ago, and it didn’t matter then. It matters less today.
GitHub, Shopify, Airbnb, Netflix (yes! Even Netflix!), Soundcloud, Kickstarter, etc. etc. all use Ruby today. It is a fantastic development environment when you’re more concerned with doing your job, and less concerned with performance pissing contests.
I'm a Nintendo die hard fan boy, I don't care about speed. I learned how to "code" in ColdFusion. I am all for the underdog POV.
We're talking about performance because of the context, which is – there aren't the jobs to support the language's continued growth and dedication. We're talking about speed because there needs to be a defining reason to continue using a language and develop in an ecosystem that isn't moving at the growth of other communities.
If Nintendo Switch had 4 games, and they all looked like dog piss - asking why would I bother wasting time with Switch is a valid opinion.
There's also this insect-minded logic of only being a "front end developer" or "back end developer", and that mindset is furthered by languages that don't bother speaking the language of the web. If I learn javascript, I can be both - pretty much on day 1. If I learn Ruby and Javascript, great. How easy is that to do for a junior developer just getting out of school? Not widely.
Ruby and Python are the only two ecosystems that seem to prioritize developer happiness. They're a pleasure to work with. So they're not going to die anytime soon.
Python might be popular but developer happiness isn't a concept I'd associate with the language. There's no joy in being limited to single statements in lambdas, for example.
But the instrument for measuring doesn’t change. That’s what makes it dependable, predictable and something to measure against. You can’t measure against a moving target.
I don't see why this should prevent it from being considered "scientific". These things limit how precise it can be but that doesn't really matter much. A few points don't matter.
Do the test when you have whatever is a normal amount of caffeine for you and after a normal nights sleep.
Ouch... The psychology is not science, though. It is kind of shamanism that is trying to be science. Raven progressive matrices are measuring your statistical biases in the first hand. The better you solve the patterns in this test, the more often you'll jump to conclusions on a base of insufficient data. And that is what they call an IQ. I have passed that test with a very high score, and I was surprised this test was as easy, and my results were as high. Then I had to think about this test for a while. The problem that I fight in myself (jumping to conclusions with little statistical evidence and insufficient data) for decades is regarded as high IQ. Bullshit.Disclaimer: I probably jumping to conclusion right now based on my own test, which is not a statistical evidence.
I cannot understand you position. You seem to assume that exactly one of these is true:
1) IQ is a measure of "true" intelligence
or
2) IQ completely fails as a measure and is meaningless
and since 1) is too nebulous to be true then 2) must be true.
I am not an expert on IQ, but if it was highly correlated with being able to recognize and guess patterns from incomplete data it would not be a surprise to me.
Even just the ability to formulate possible solutions to ambiguous problems could credibly have high correlation with IQ.
I am not saying that these are true, I am just wondering why they sound so impossible to you.
My point is: IQ tests fail to provide a measure of intelligence. The linked video at the end discusses some reasons why, such as environmental, educational, and cultural differences. The primary problem with these tests is that they are created by groups of people who have their own specific view on what intelligence is.
Yes, these tests assess certain traits of an individual, but intelligence is likely a more complex topic. Consider the language part of some tests, for example. These tests include vocabulary that the test subjects must know in order not to be discriminated against due to cultural and environmental factors. Instead, vocabulary capacity is measured. Language tests should include logical tasks of varying complexity, which must be solved without providing a variety of answers. If answers are provided, this will test for pattern recognition traits.
What was the point of repeating yourself? You didn't specify what those measurable things were. My point is, the term "IQ" should not be used if the test is unable to measure what its name implies. That's about it. The cultural bias in IQ tests has been widely documented. However, I must admit the usefulness of these tests by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps in decreasing fatality rates. It might be better to rename these tests though.
One thing it apparently measures decently well is how good of a beginner you are on a new random thing.
Honestly I too would appreciate a different name because too many people[0] see it as "Smart Elite Classifier Test".
wrt cultural biases it is the same issue, you would need to develop a different test for each new cultural context. I agree that biased test have been used wrongly.
Overral IQ has a serious public image problem as some of its most vocal supporters are also its worst enemies.
This is only evidence that we should not (tw: strawman argument) create a classist society where your lifetime status is algorithmically decided by a single test taken once at 18.
If you assume that IQ measures $SOMETHING this just mean that both sleep quality and caffeine influence $SOMETHING
The same exact way they are doing here - pass a law requiring the company to comply with certain standards if it wants to operate in Canada and lawfully provide services to Canadian customers. Standards that could, for example, include the requirement for all content on the platform to be indexable. Or even to mandate open protocols and federation.
The word used was "open", and you wouldn't be able to force a company to open itself to intellectual theft at the hands of a foreign government. You're reducing a complex legal/rights policy into "wats the problem just do it guys" mentality. You can't even get rights to index something niche, like the Ontario Opera archive catalogue without running into several unions and trade rights representatives. To think that everyone from Google to Netflix could just do this is hilarious.
Anyone else ask themselves why the signup process requires a phone number, despite signing up with a third party auth provider that already had my phone number? There is no reason to collect this data.
