I mentioned in my Hello, world! post that I built this site using Hanami. This site may seem simple on the surface; it is, after all, just a blog. However, the backend is packed with features that help me day to day. I have built a tool that lets me cross-post to both Bluesky and Mastodon. I have a private journal where I can keep notes throughout the day. There is a custom analytics engine to provide me with insights on how well my blog posts are doing. There is a messaging backend that lets readers reach me through my contact form without cluttering my inbox. I have also built a task manager that syncs with both Linear and GitHub Issues and helps me track what I need to do. Most importantly, I have built an activity feed that captures my GitHub commits, journal entries, blog posts, and tasks. It helps me answer the question "What did I do between ___ and ___ dates?", which, believe it or not, is hard for me to answer on my own, even for last week. The application is open source, and you can find it on GitHub.
In the major categories of language differentiation, you’re in one camp. I’m trying to think of a language that has switched camps, the language itself. Not a library. This is my point. Making a library to switch camps is imo historically difficult because of what Joe said.
I addressed this point in my original reply: Ruby is not fully in the OOP camp and never was. If you have that sense, it was because the OOP features previously got more emphasis than the functional ones. But Ruby began as a LISP VM, its functional bona fides are not new, and a greater emphasis on FP in Ruby is not “switching camps.” It’s a false binary.
I addressed this point in my original reply: Ruby is not fully in the OOP camp and never was. If you have that sense, it was because the OOP features previously got more emphasis than the functional ones. But Ruby began as a LISP VM, its functional bona fides are not new, and a greater emphasis on FP in Ruby is not “switching camps.” It’s a false binary.
score 1 · canonical