Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Pharo vs Ruby: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this comparison, we will highlight key differences between Pharo and Ruby, two popular programming languages used in software development.
Syntax: Pharo is an object-oriented language with a syntax similar to Smalltalk, emphasizing message passing and dynamic typing. On the other hand, Ruby is also an object-oriented language but follows a more traditional syntax with a focus on readability and developer productivity.
Execution Environment: Pharo runs on its unique virtual machine, ensuring optimal performance and compatibility with its libraries. In contrast, Ruby relies on the Ruby interpreter, which may lead to slightly slower execution speeds compared to Pharo.
Standard Libraries: Pharo comes with a comprehensive set of libraries for common tasks such as networking, GUI development, and database access. In Ruby, the standard library is more lightweight, with an emphasis on community-contributed gems to enhance functionality.
Metaprogramming Capabilities: Ruby is well-known for its powerful metaprogramming features, allowing developers to dynamically define and modify classes and methods at runtime. While Pharo also supports metaprogramming, it is less emphasized and used less frequently in the language.
Community and Ecosystem: Ruby has a larger and more active community than Pharo, resulting in a vast ecosystem of libraries, frameworks, and resources available for developers. Pharo, being a more niche language, has a smaller but dedicated community that focuses on maintaining and evolving the language and associated tools.
Tooling and IDE Support: Pharo comes with a powerful integrated development environment (IDE) out of the box, offering features like live debugging, code browsing, and refactoring tools. Ruby, on the other hand, relies on third-party IDEs and editors like Visual Studio Code and Atom for enhanced development capabilities.
In Summary, Pharo and Ruby differ in syntax, execution environment, standard libraries, metaprogramming capabilities, community support, and tooling/IDE options.
In 2015 as Xelex Digital was paving a new technology path, moving from ASP.NET web services and web applications, we knew that we wanted to move to a more modular decoupled base of applications centered around REST APIs.
To that end we spent several months studying API design patterns and decided to use our own adaptation of CRUD, specifically a SCRUD pattern that elevates query params to a more central role via the Search action.
Once we nailed down the API design pattern it was time to decide what language(s) our new APIs would be built upon. Our team has always been driven by the right tool for the job rather than what we know best. That said, in balancing practicality we chose to focus on 3 options that our team had deep experience with and knew the pros and cons of.
For us it came down to C#, JavaScript, and Ruby. At the time we owned our infrastructure, racks in cages, that were all loaded with Windows. We were also at a point that we were using that infrastructure to it's fullest and could not afford additional servers running Linux. That's a long way of saying we decided against Ruby as it doesn't play nice on Windows.
That left us with two options. We went a very unconventional route for deciding between the two. We built MVP APIs on both. The interfaces were identical and interchangeable. What we found was easily quantifiable differences.
We were able to iterate on our Node based APIs much more rapidly than we were our C# APIs. For us this was owed to the community coupled with the extremely dynamic nature of JS. There were tradeoffs we considered, latency was (acceptably) higher on requests to our Node APIs. No strong types to protect us from ourselves, but we've rarely found that to be an issue.
As such we decided to commit resources to our Node APIs and push it out as the core brain of our new system. We haven't looked back since. It has consistently met our needs, scaling with us, getting better with time as continually pour into and expand our capabilities.
In December we successfully flipped around half a billion monthly API requests from our Ruby on Rails application to some new Python 3 applications. Our Head of Engineering has written a great article as to why we decided to transition from Ruby on Rails to Python 3! Read more about it in the link below.
When I was evaluating languages to write this app in, I considered either Python or JavaScript at the time. I find Ruby very pleasant to read and write, and the Ruby community has built out a wide variety of test tools and approaches, helping e deliver better software faster. Along with Rails, and the Ruby-first Heroku support, this was an easy decision.
Pros of Pharo
- Purely object-oriented3
- Readable code3
- Image-based instead of source-file based3
- Great tooling3
- Dinamic live programming3
- Great syntax for anonymous functions (blocks)3
- Minimalist syntax3
- Programming in the debugger3
- Simple OOP3
- Great DSL capabilities3
- Interactive development2
- Great visualization tools2
- Great IDE2
- Open Source2
- Rapid development2
- Git integration out-of-the-box2
- Batteries included1
- Headless (CLI) support1
Pros of Ruby
- Programme friendly607
- Quick to develop538
- Great community492
- Productivity469
- Simplicity432
- Open source274
- Meta-programming235
- Powerful208
- Blocks157
- Powerful one-liners140
- Flexible70
- Easy to learn59
- Easy to start52
- Maintainability42
- Lambdas38
- Procs31
- Fun to write21
- Diverse web frameworks19
- Reads like English14
- Makes me smarter and happier10
- Rails9
- Elegant syntax9
- Very Dynamic8
- Matz7
- Programmer happiness6
- Object Oriented5
- Elegant code4
- Friendly4
- Generally fun but makes you wanna cry sometimes4
- Fun and useful4
- There are so many ways to make it do what you want3
- Easy packaging and modules3
- Primitive types can be tampered with2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Pharo
Cons of Ruby
- Memory hog7
- Really slow if you're not really careful7
- Nested Blocks can make code unreadable3
- Encouraging imperative programming2
- No type safety, so it requires copious testing1
- Ambiguous Syntax, such as function parentheses1