[q845712]

Honestly at the time I remember getting weird twee/precious vibes from the Ruby community and I wasn't particularly interested in it or Rails. I only discovered _why's poignant guide later after I had to learn Rails on the job, and to be honest I never finished it.

I still strongly prefer the worldview, circumstances, mindset, etc. where that kind of content is written, read, and celebrated over today's focus on Influence and Professionalism.

[wyclif]

I actually knew _why's real identity, but I refused to divulge it partly because I didn't want his performance to end (even though, sadly, I knew it couldn't last forever) and partly because _why is a fellow native of my home state of Pennsylvania. And I totally agree that his whimsical style is far more preferable than anything every written by any LinkedIn programming "influencer."

[astrange]

I seem to remember multiple incidents where Rails programmers complained that everyone at the conference they went to was playing Werewolf instead of sticking to the topic. It made me wonder what kind of community would lead to that.

As for _why, there is nothing special about him. If you need an overly precious twee white guy, we have a natural source of them called the city of Portland. You can go find another ten of them there. They have waxed mustaches and are running combination coffee bars and thrift stores.

[joshbert]

> As for _why, there is nothing special about him

That sounds patently false to me considering we're still talking about him almost 20 years after his flagship work was published.

Minimizing _why because of a tired, narrow-minded focus on identity politics seems disingenuous and like a missed opportunity to learn

[fknorangesite]

> They have waxed mustaches and are running combination coffee bars and thrift stores.

Ah, has Portland moved on from keeping alive the Dream Of The 90s to the Dream Of The Late 2000s?

[wyclif]

I don't think that's true at all. If you go back and read his stuff, it ages pretty well in my estimation, largely because _why was apolitical. And he was way more informed by good humanities sources than any average Portland woke hipster.

[throwanem]

I don't.

Even in the terms of the false dichotomy you've constructed here, I would much rather participate in a community of professionals who've organized themselves around sufficiently overlapping shared intents, than one accreted around the kind of twee, precious narcissism that characterized the early days of Ruby and Rails.

That comparison is informed by direct experience with both, and is the precise reason why my professional experience with both the language and the platform will to my dying day consist of one successful project a few months long.

A good professional community supports a wide variety of learning styles and levels of engagement, and tends to make a lot of resources easy to find for anyone who's willing to put in a little effort of research. The early Ruby and Rails communities did the exact opposite of this. Between "_why"'s guide serving a primary-reference role to which it is manifestly ill suited, and nobody much bothering to document anything effectively outside that, figuring out how to work with their garbage software was like pulling teeth - especially because, in a language constructed as a farrago of the worst ideas from Perl, Smalltalk, and Common Lisp, even reading the source is anything but a guarantee of understanding.

The structural exclusivity alone was bad enough, but the behavior of community leaders quickly demonstrated that the exclusivity was the point. That the "Poignant Guide" should be considered acceptable as primary documentation implies that the function of selecting for people willing to put up with that kind of nonsense was intended - maybe not as a matter of explicit design, although this would not surprise me, but "the purpose of a system is what it does". This system was created by narcissists to select for acolytes, and while I wouldn't quite call it a cult, neither am I prepared to say those who have are entirely wrong. And if it was a cult, it was a stupid cult, because Ruby is a language that makes programmers worse and Rails was never good technology; its sole unqualified success lies in having inspired software engineers to do similar things in better ways.

I'm sure by now I've upset some folks; there are some for whom no criticism of Ruby, Rails, or their leading lights can fail to read as a personal attack. If that's you who's reading this now, all I can say is this shows the difference between us: if you're cut out to be an acolyte, fine, go to it! I would rather be a practitioner in a community of practice. Granted this means my technical documentation comes without cartoon foxes and a level of pretense suited to an early 2000s Abercrombie catalog, but for documentation that actually documents that's a trade I'm happy to make.

[ertian]

It must have been awful when you were forced to engage with a whimsical community like that. I mean...I'm assuming you were forced, because why else would you harbor so much bitterness over the fact that there were once some people who did things differently than you would have liked?

[hereonout2]

There was a lot of quirkiness and egotism then, the cult of personality was rife, not just with project leaders such as DHH but ancillary dramas from folks like Zed Shaw.

The stuff from _why was always wacky but some of their projects were also really inspiring for younger programmers, of which I was one. I could take or leave the cartoon foxes but I remember seeing the code for the Camping framework when it was released and being amazed at how simple and elegant it was.

The ruby and rails community set a path that is followed by many to this day. We're all python programmers now but there'd be no Flask without Sinatra, or Django without Rails. The author of the excellent dependency management tool Bundler went onto work on Yarn for javascript and then created Cargo for rust. Mitchell Hashimoto wrote Vagrant in ruby before starting hashicorp, there's loads of examples like this

I disagree that the Poingant Guide was the primary documentation for anything, it was a quirky guide for new comers. The Pragmatic bookshelf had the definitive guide to the language, as well as the rails book and then a whole series of other publications. I also remember spending a lot of time on the core ruby documentation, which does a fantastic job of covering the extensive standard library.

[DocSavage]

> I would much rather participate in a community of professionals who've organized themselves around sufficiently overlapping shared intents

I thoroughly enjoyed my involvement with early (US) Ruby and Rails folks from the first Rails conf to _why's unusual entertainment to Matz's calm and humble demeanor. People bounced ideas off each other and just enjoyed coding up interesting things. Dave Thomas and the Pragmatic Programmer group wrote what many of us used, not so much _why's guide which was still a fun read. I moderated a Ruby panel at the old Odeo HQ just before they pivoted. I didn't know the group gathering at that Ruby SF meeting would include not only Twitter but Github founders as well. At the time, tweets seemed pretty absurd to some of us but guess what happens when you try out ideas in a community that was into exploration?

[Tainnor]

Speaking as someone who started out with Ruby and Rails and has since migrated to other stacks...

I would never conflate Ruby and Rails.

Ruby is a language that took interesting ideas and developed them in a unique way. Today, it doesn't align with my goals 100% anymore (I do like Ruby's focus on expressivity, but not when it comes at the expense of predictability), but I don't think that's Ruby's fault.

Rails, by contrast, is software that did a few things right (things should work mostly out of the box, automated migrations, testing built in) and way too many things wrong. Design and architecture are dirty words for much of the Rails community (and this thought very explicitly originates with DHH who still maintains that you don't need anything besides models, views and controllers), autoloading is hot garbage, "magic" libraries that start monkeypatching your code just because you add them to your Gemfile are a thing, the biggest auth library, devise, is an opinionated mess, writing proper (fast) unit tests is difficult and goes against the framework, and so on.

I would say that most of the good ideas that came with Rails have now been incorporated by better frameworks (even in Ruby itself, but in particular also in other ecosystems), so it's good that it was there, but I wouldn't recommend it any more.

But Ruby didn't originate with Rails. To my knowledge it's still used today by Japanese developers who don't particularly care about Rails.