In “optimizing for programming happiness”, there's much more left to be defined than ”happiness”. I think the biggest ambiguity here is ”programming”.
”Programming” can mean a lot of things, and I think Ruby still tailors too much to the ”be able to scrap things together somewhat elegantly” meaning.
But once the project takes off, you want performance and safety. Performance is constantly improved, but it seems safety is completely overlooked. TypeScript & co. proved you can make a type system that doesn't compromise for flexibility, so I think it should be at the core of the Ruby language improvements discussions.
I’m thinking a lot about this right now. Do you know of any successful company that did not adhere to giving conventional (i.e. very small) amounts of equity to employees?
I’m also wondering whether giving significantly more equity than usual to employees would deter potential investors, even if their own share of the cake remains the same (i.e. only by diluting the founders).
”Programming” can mean a lot of things, and I think Ruby still tailors too much to the ”be able to scrap things together somewhat elegantly” meaning.
But once the project takes off, you want performance and safety. Performance is constantly improved, but it seems safety is completely overlooked. TypeScript & co. proved you can make a type system that doesn't compromise for flexibility, so I think it should be at the core of the Ruby language improvements discussions.