You could be criticising any memory managed programming language.
No, I'm explicitly criticizing Ruby. I've spent years in Python-land and the average code quality (and btw documentation standard) is much higher over there. Which is not to say Python doesn't have its own problems, but less so in this particular area.
say that the average rubyist is much more concerned with good design than, say, your average java dev.
Good design is a relative term. In ruby I frequently see it interpreted as: Pack as many layers of magic as possible, and then test that with as many layers of testing-frameworks as possible.
That's not too different from the common architecture-astronouting in java. One could argue it's just a different flavor. In either ecosystem the implementation of the actual business concerns ("What does this code actually do?") too often feels like an afterthought.
Disclaimer: I'm not condemning either language. I like Ruby and use it a lot, but this is one aspect that I can't ignore.
> Good design is a relative term. In ruby I frequently see it interpreted as: Pack as many layers of magic as possible, and then test that with as many layers of testing-frameworks as possible.
I have the same feeling sometimes. I wish the Ruby community would not be so concerned with magic and aesthetics, and target clarity.
I'm referring really to functional clarity. Fancy ruby DSLs that invoke method_missing and parse function names make for aesthetically pleasing end user code, but obfuscate the functionality for anyone unfamiliar with the code base.
Aesthetics and clarity are most certainly different in other ways (think pretty sites vs simple clear sites) but that's another discussion.
No, I'm explicitly criticizing Ruby. I've spent years in Python-land and the average code quality (and btw documentation standard) is much higher over there. Which is not to say Python doesn't have its own problems, but less so in this particular area.
say that the average rubyist is much more concerned with good design than, say, your average java dev.
Good design is a relative term. In ruby I frequently see it interpreted as: Pack as many layers of magic as possible, and then test that with as many layers of testing-frameworks as possible.
That's not too different from the common architecture-astronouting in java. One could argue it's just a different flavor. In either ecosystem the implementation of the actual business concerns ("What does this code actually do?") too often feels like an afterthought.
Disclaimer: I'm not condemning either language. I like Ruby and use it a lot, but this is one aspect that I can't ignore.