I tried to reach myself Ruby a while ago, but ran into a plethora of issues just trying to get a stable running version of the compiler going. There's like, three different sites claiming to be the official site, which is which?

Does anyone even use Ruby anymore? Is it even worth learning?

@alice you know a smattering of Ruby right?

@Alice I just found a page on that site the I've not seen before. Ruby has implementations, rather than built-in frameworks? Why?

The guy on stage is "Matz," the creator of the Ruby language.
He made this presentation at this year's RubyKaigi.

What the hell are you taking about?

A) there is no compiler. It's an interpreted language.
B) First result for "ruby" on both ddg and google: https://www.ruby-lang.org
C) There are different implementations of the interpreter so that it may run in different environments, e.g. JRuby lets it run on the JVM. A little unusual, but interesting and can be quite useful.
D) built-in frameworks? Are you listening to yourself?
E) Matz is making fun of people saying Ruby is dead. I mean, there are thousands of people there. At the convention. For Ruby. Eagerly waiting to listen to Matz talk about Ruby. Yeah, he's totally telling everyone it's dead.
F) `apt install ruby -y && ruby -e 'printf "wow, much difficult! Very challenge."'

Sorry for sounding so rude, but.
Did you even try?

@Root Chill. I'm asking questions because I don't know much about Ruby.

a) I can't seem to tell, because when I tried RoR on windows I had to grab three or four separate packages and figure out how to install them. They also ended up being mismatched versions unless I delved through the release histories.

b) Location location location. Even personal search history can influence results.

c) its unusual and confusing. But in hindsight, quite an interesting solution. Still not sure why one would use Ruby as opposed to Java in a JVM, I have yet to find a specific use case that can't be natively satisfied with Java. But, again, I don't know Ruby.

d) yes. By that I imply that when I grab an IDE that has the .NET libraries, they come packaged with ASP. They also have extensions for other major use cases. I don't have to install a separate package to get the web functionality, which is why the separation of Ruby and Rails confuses me.

...

...
e) I haven't seen a ruby vacancy for a good eight to twelve months. That doesn't mean the language is dead, but if there isn't enough demand for it in a year its pointless me learning it.

f) I tried this on Windows, not Linux. I didn't have a Linux machine readily available.

I'm not shitting on Ruby. I'm interested in understanding it. Stop being a snarky elitist.

@monr0e
I'm not being an elitist; your messages make it look like you didn't try.

Anyway, installing Ruby on Windows is harder, but still fairly easy. Rails, however, is not: it's not officially supported on Windows, so you'll have difficulty finding a Rails installer matching your Ruby version. I definitely feel your pain there.

Also, Rails is not part of Ruby. It's the most common usage of Ruby, but it's just a web framework sitting atop the language. Similar to Flask and Python.

Ruby is bliss, so developers rarely want to leave 😋 but like with everything, picking up another language will teach you different patterns and approaches. Be wary, though: Ruby is alluring. You may not want to leave.

@Root one might say that ASP is not part of C#, but since IT in general is moving towards a web based service environment, at least to a degree, it seems logical that packages include web frameworks by default. That's really tangential though, what irks me is that whilst rails might not be supported under Windows, there's no real mention of the same in an obvious fashion. In fact, the guide itself says "if you are working on Windows, you should install the development kit". To me, that says "supported on Windows".

Grumble grumble.

I do, however, very much like Ruby from the snippets I've seen thus far. It makes *sense*, which is more than can be said for some languages.

@monr0e decidedly agreed on all points.

Also, the snarky comment was out of line. I can be salty sometimes, sorry.