Ruby vs TypeScript
When comparing Ruby vs TypeScript, the Slant community recommends TypeScript for most people. In the question“What is the best programming language to learn first?” TypeScript is ranked 6th while Ruby is ranked 10th. The most important reason people chose TypeScript is:
Typescript has optional static typing with support for interfaces and generics, and intelligent type inference. It makes refactoring large codebases a breeze, and provides many more safeguards for creating stable code.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Widely used
Ruby is one of the most popular languages for developing web sites. As a result, there's an abundant amount of documentation, sample code, and libraries available for learning the language and getting your project up and running. The most popular features are just 'gem install' away. Additionally, it is easier to find Ruby jobs because of this.
Pro Clean syntax
Ruby has a very clean syntax that makes code easier to both read and write than more traditional Object Oriented languages, such as Java. For beginning programmers, this means the focus is on the meaning of the program, where it should be, rather than trying to figure out the meaning of obscure characters.
presidents = ["Ford", "Carter", "Reagan", "Bush1", "Clinton", "Bush2"]
for ss in 0...presidents.length
print ss, ": ", presidents[presidents.length - ss - 1], "\n";
end
Pro A large ecosystem of tools & libraries
Ruby has a large ecosystem of tools and libraries for just about every use. Such as ORMs (Active Record, DatabMapper), Web Application Frameworks(Rails, Sinatra, Volt), Virtualization Orchestration(docker-api, drelict), CLI tools(Thor, Commando), GUI Frameworks(Shoes, FXRuby) and the list goes on. If you can think of it, there is probably a gem for that ( and if not you can create your own and share with the community).
Pro Newbie-friendly community
Pro Essential algorithmic features
The Ruby language is equipped with the necessary features to learn the essence of algorithms.
In online playground environments like ideone.com, measures have been taken to prevent beginners from going astray by restricting the use of external libraries such as Python's NumPy and SymPy.
Even in such constrained Ruby execution environments, the required features for learning algorithms are fully available.
Many of the algorithms that should be learned are documented in the book "Hello Ruby: Adventures in Coding." For example, the cake serving problem in the book leads to topological sorting, which is a graph theory concept useful in project management for creating Gantt charts.
To evaluate the effectiveness of algorithms with a level of complexity comparable to topological sorting,
it is necessary to be able to solve mathematical computation problems up to the high school level easily.
As shown in the table below, using only Ruby's standard library, it is possible to solve high school-level math problems effortlessly.
However, other programming languages may not be able to perform such computations in online playground environments.
To experience the superior performance of algorithms, it is important to challenge oneself by reimplementing good algorithms. Ruby's standard library includes implementations of excellent algorithms. For instance, the algorithm for solving linear equations, which has been widely known since the era of Fortran, is used within the code of SolvingLinearEquations through the "/" operator. Reimplementing code from Ruby's standard library serves as an excellent learning resource with high reusability and efficiency.
The SolvingLinearEquations function mentioned above demonstrates the benefits of duck typing and forced type conversion between objects of different types in arithmetic operations. While Rust also has features like duck typing, the implementation of "forced type conversion" is still far from being realized.
Mathematical Problem Type | Ruby Standard Library | Python Standard Library |
---|---|---|
Long Integer and Fraction | ✓ | ✓ |
Long Integer and Complex Fraction | ✓ | ✖ |
Operations on Matrices with Multiple-Digit Numbers as Coefficients | ✓ | ✖ |
Solution of Integer Coefficient Systems of Equations | ✓ | ✖ |
Solution of Systems of Equations with Long Integer and Complex Fraction Coefficients | ✓ | ✖ |
Solutions of Linear Equations with Real, Fraction, Complex, and Complex Fraction Coefficients | ✓ | ✖ |
# Title: "(1) Cake Serving Procedure Problem"
require 'tsort'
class Hash
include TSort
alias tsort_each_node each_key
def tsort_each_child(node, &block)
fetch(node).each(&block)
end
end
puts 'Tasks'
task_names = {
'A' => 'Arrange the plates.',
'B' => 'Set the spoons.',
'C' => 'Place the birthday cake on the table.',
'D' => 'Spread the tablecloth.'
}
p task_names
puts 'Preceding Tasks'
preceding_tasks = {
'A' => ['D'],
'B' => ['C', 'A'],
'C' => ['A', 'D'],
'D' => []
}
steps = preceding_tasks.strongly_connected_components
puts 'The appropriate steps are as follows:'
steps.each do |task_candidates|
p task_candidates.map { |task| [task, task_names[task]] }
end
p "#(2) Equation Solving Rule"
def SolvingLinearEquations(y, a, b)
x = (y - b) / a
end
p "(2-1) Real Solution", SolvingLinearEquations(1.0, 5, 0.5)
# => 0.1
p "(2-2) Fraction Solution", SolvingLinearEquations(Rational(1, 1), Rational(5, 1), Rational(1, 2))
# => (1/10)
p "(2-3) Imaginary Solution", SolvingLinearEquations(1 + 1i, 5, 1.0 / (2 + 2i))
# => (0.15+0.25i)
p "(2-4) Complex & Fraction Solution", SolvingLinearEquations(Rational(1 + 1i, 1), Rational(5, 1), Rational(1, 2 + 2i))
# => ((3/20)+(1/4)*i)
p "(2-5) Matrix Solution with Large Integers",
SolvingLinearEquations(Matrix[[Rational(1234567890123456789890, 1), Rational(0, 1)]],
Matrix[[Rational(1234567890123456789890, 1), Rational(1234567890123456789890 * 2, 1)],
[Rational(1234567890123456789890, 1), Rational(1234567890123456789890 * 3, 1)]],
Matrix[[Rational(1234567890, 1), Rational(123456789, 1)]] )
# => Matrix[[(3703703670366790122789/1234567890123456789890), (-2469135780244567900789/1234567890123456789890)]]
p "(2-7) Matrix Solution with Large Integers, Complex Numbers, and Fractions",
SolvingLinearEquations(Matrix[[Rational(1234567890123456789890, 1i), Rational(0, 1)]],
Matrix[[Rational(1234567890123456789890, 1), Rational(1234567890123456789890 * 2, 1i)],
[Rational(1234567890123456789890, 1), Rational(1234567890123456789890 * 3, 1i)]],
Matrix[[1234567890, 0 + 1i]] )
# => Matrix[[((-3703703671/1234567890123456789890)-(3/1)*i), ((2469135781/1234567890123456789890)+(2/1)*i)]]
Pro Ruby on Rails
Lays out an easy to follow and opinionated MVC pattern that teaches best practices through necessity.
Pro Test Driven Development, #1
It's the fore-runner and trend setter for TDD.
Pro Hugely object oriented
Object oriented programming is one of the most important concepts in programming.
Pro Meta-programming
Meta-programming provides efficiency and freedom.
Pro No indentation
No indentation increase development efficiency.
Pro Pry
Pro Optional static typing
Typescript has optional static typing with support for interfaces and generics, and intelligent type inference.
It makes refactoring large codebases a breeze, and provides many more safeguards for creating stable code.
Pro Strong typed language
Lot of benefits of it, you can read this.
Pro Strict superset of Javascript
Every existing Javascript program is already a valid TypeScript program giving it the best support for existing libraries, which is particularly useful if you need to integrate with an existing Javascript code base.
Pro First party Visual Studio support
As a Microsoft developed project, it has first party Visual Studio support that's on par with its C# support with features like syntax sensitive statement completion.
Pro Has a repository of high quality TypeScript type definitions for popular libraries
There are many ready to use and high quality TypeScript definitions for popular libraries including jquery, angular, bootstrap, d3, lodash and many-many more.
Pro Adds support for object-oriented programming
Typescript enables familiar object-oriented programming patterns: classes, inheritance, public/private methods and properties, et cetera.
Pro Polyfill for ES6 fat-arrow syntax
Typescript implements the fat arrow syntax, which always maintains the current context for this
and is a shorter/more convenient syntax than traditional function definition.
Pro Great support for React, integrated typed JSX parsing
Strongly typed react components, so UI "templating" automatically gains type safety.
Pro Great support for editors (Sublime, Code, Vim, IntelliJ...)
Pro Works well with existing Javascript code
Both can call Javascript code and be called by Javascript code. Making transitioning to the language very easy.
Pro Compiles to very native looking code
Compiles to simple looking Javascript making it easy to understand what is happening and learn the language (if you already know Javascript).
Pro Built and supported by Microsoft
Being built by Microsoft, TypeScript is much more likely than most other similar open-source projects to receive continued long-term support, good documentation, and a steady stream of development.
Pro Ability to do functional programming
Pro Clear roadmap
TypeScript has a clear and defined roadmap with rapid and constant releases.
Pro Low number of logical errors brought in by built-in type annotations
TypeScript's built-in type signatures allow developers to fully document interfaces and make sure that they will be correctly compiled. Therefore, cutting down on logical errors.
Pro Works well with Angular 2
Angular 2 is built using TypeScript and applications built using it can make use of that (or not).
Cons
Con Monkeypatching
Requiring a library can change the rules of the language. This is very confusing for beginners.
Con Its ecosystem is limited outside of web development
If you're looking to host, generate, manipulate or secure a website, Ruby is your language. There's also some great support here for infrastructure as code work via Chef. However, it just doesn't have the depth and breadth that Python does. Things like native UI development, high performance math, and embedded / small footprint environments are barely supported at all in Ruby-space.
Con Arcane grammar based on Perl
Ruby is too complicated for beginners:
- arcane Perlisms;
- semi-significant whitespace;
- parentheses are not necessary around method arguments, except for sometimes they are;
- control constructs could be elegantly implemented with block like Smalltalk (Instead they're baked into the grammar.);
- verbose block syntax, unless it happens to be the last argument. (proc lambda).
- There are too many exceptional cases and arcane precedence rules.
Con Meta-programming causes confusion for new developers
The ability for libraries to open classes and augment them leads to confusion for new developers since it is not clear who injected the functionality into some standard class.
In other words, if two modules decide to modify the same function on the same class can introduce a number of issues. Mainly, the order in which the modules are included matters. Since you more or less can't tell what kind of "helper" functions a module might write into any class, or for that matter, where the helper function was included from, you may sometimes wonder why class X can do Y sometimes but not at other times.
Con No docstrings
It's hard to access Ruby's documentation from the REPL (irb), unlike Python, Lisp, and Smalltalk which let you ask functions how to use them, which is a great benefit to the beginner, and which also encourages you to document your program as you code it.
Con More than one way to do it
A problem inspired by Perl. The core API interfaces are bloated. There's at least four different ways to define methods. More is not always better. Sometimes it's just more.
Con Does not teach you about data types
Since Ruby is a dynamically typed language, you don't have to learn about data types if you start using Ruby as your first language. Data types being one of the most important concepts in programming. This also will cause trouble in the long run when you will have to (inevitably) learn and work with a statically typed language because you will be forced to learn the type system from scratch.
Con Dynamic type system
Majority of bugs could be resolved with types.
Con Viewed as a web development language
Despite its flexibility and performance, Ruby is often seen as being unsuitable for other tasks by those who are not familiar with it. As such, a lot of discussion about it centers around Rails, which is not at all relevant if you're using Ruby for something else, such as game development.
Con Focus on Object-Oriented Programming (OOP)
Focussing on OOP in a beginner stage is an easy and popular plan, but not the best one.
Con Too similar to Javascript
Presents some advantages compared to Javascript, but because it is designed to be a superset of Javascript, it means all the bad parts of Javascript are still present.
Con Type checking not enforced by default
You have to use compiler flags to make sure it catches flaws like usage of implicit any, etc.
Con Type inference coverage is incomplete
The default type when declaring and using a variable is any
. For example, the following should break but does not:
function add(a:number) { return a + 1 }
function addAB(a, b) {return add(a) + b}
addAB("this should break but doesn't :(", 100)
In order to avoid this, you have to declare type signatures for every variable or parameter or set the flag --noImplicityAny
when running the compiler.
Con Requires "this" for field access
Even in cases were there is no ambiguity, you still have to use "this.fieldName" instead of just "fieldName".
Con Syntax is too verbose
Con No support for dead code elimination
Typescript compiler does not remove dead code from generated file(s), you have to use external tools to remove unused code after compilation. This is harder to achieve, because Typescript compiler eliminated all type information.
Con No support for conditional compilation
There is no clean way to have debug and release builds compiled from the same source, where the release version removes all debugging tools and outputs from the generated file(s).
Con Awful error messages
Comparing to Elm or Rust for example, TypeScript's error messages won't say you very much. For example if you change method of interface which your class implements it won't say your class have incorrect implementation. Instead it'll show error in usage of instances of class. In some cases it can spoil hours of your work trying to figure out why your parameters are incorrect.
Con Technical debt
As consequence of not enforcing type checking.
Con No Java-like package structure
If you prefer a Java-like approach of partitioning your code into different packages, the module system of typescript will confuse you.