Man I haven’t seen much with genetic algorithms in a while. I should get back into that.
@NEETzsche Genetic algorithms... I remember implementing them in C almost 20 years ago. Nostalgic memory.
>Ruby is a deadlang, no one should be writing any new software in it.
um sweaty new shit is coming out for it all the time
But seriously why do you characterize Ruby as “dead”?
Reminder Ruby (on Rails) came to it's position because of basically cargo cult fad mentality during early Web 2.0. NodeJS didn't exist then. Even Python has frameworks like Django. It's dead, only existing on inertia from nearly 20 years ago.
@crunklord420 You can repeat that it’s dead until you’re blue in the face but that doesn’t make it so. I agree with you that if I were to start a back end project today I would not use Rails, but I also know for a fact that a lot of companies are because they keep trying to recruit me for new projects that are going to be written in Rails based on experience on my resume from like a decade ago. These aren’t maintenance projects but actual new things from scratch. Once you get into industries that aren’t obsessed with tech sperging Rails still has a lot of credibility that Django just doesn’t.
I’ve done a little bit of open source work for Pleroma to pick up Phoenix because I would like to jump ships to it, but the truth is actual companies in the real world want to hire for things that do not correlate to Google search result data. They don’t even want my .NET experience and I have more of that than Ruby.
If you really believe that Rails is dead, in the sense that nobody is making new projects with it, you’re in for a very rude awakening when you go out there and the rubber hits the road. JavaScript backends are deader than Ruby backends by a long shot.
@colonelj there is already a well-developed enough foreign program that’s written in Ruby called Discourse. So he may have meant running that.
@crunklord420 I’m really not a fan of Discourse. It’s written in Rails.
@crunklord420 I’ve been meaning to pick up Rust, but even now it just doesn’t have the momentum Ruby does, unfortunately. It looks cute, though, in spite of the trannies into it
>Early PHP was not intended to be a new programming language, and grew organically, with Lerdorf noting in retrospect: "I don't know how to stop it, there was never any intent to write a programming language [...] I have absolutely no idea how to write a programming language, I just kept adding the next logical step on the way."[20] A development team began to form and, after months of work and beta testing, officially released PHP/FI 2 in November 1997.
>The fact that PHP was not originally designed, but instead was developed organically has led to inconsistent naming of functions and inconsistent ordering of their parameters.[21] In some cases, the function names were chosen to match the lower-level libraries which PHP was "wrapping",[22] while in some very early versions of PHP the length of the function names was used internally as a hash function, so names were chosen to improve the distribution of hash values.[23]
Now open wide for your blackpill:
PHP is not dead no matter how “bad” you think it is.
I hear more modern scripting languages like Python and Ruby are getting good at the kind of number crunching that genetic algorithms thrive on. A bright future.