History of Ruby was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 March 2025 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ruby (programming language). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
I call your attention to the fact that currently the expression "language reference" is not present on the page. It is nice to read tutorials and getting started guides, but the point comes when you want to get down to serious business. Then you need a language reference. Matz knows this and he wrote one - last modified: Mon Feb 23 16:01:41 1998.
ruby-doc.org is of course OK, but is not easy, it does not have a good table of contents.
You are a good hunter of those... I never noticed it without you pointing out. BTW Wikipedia has an equally unobtrusive Donate link on the sidebar... so what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.245.81.13 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would a version table be useful? If so, where would it be best placed? I would propose at the top of the 'History' section, as that is where the different versions are discussed.
Hey, I'm pretty sure that, per WP:NOTCHANGELOG, the table of versions isn't suitable for inclusion in the article. I have since removed it. If I missed something or if the table is vital to the article, feel free to revert. Moon motif (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCHANGELOG is about 'Exhaustive logs of software updates". A version history table is not a changelog and not exhaustive.
It connects together the release date of an version and its deprecation, which are generally years apart in diverse changelogs and news. That information is relevant for instance when investigating dependencies between different softwares.
@Viam Ferream: I don't see what this has to do the *this* page, but the note at the creating page screen says: "05:01, 10 January 2016 Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) deleted page Unicorn (web server) (Expired PROD, concern was: unreferenced software article of unclear notability, tagged as unreferenced since 2014, and created by an SPA as possibly promotional)". Information about PROD's can be found at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. If you have further questions about the deletion, you should ask the deleting admin, Rjd0060 (talk·contribs), on their talk page. Rwessel (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Green Unicorn, a Python port of the Unicorn web server for Ruby. I'm not familiar with Ruby or Unicorn, other than as a precursor to Green Unicorn. They both have a weird forking model, so they're ineresting mostly as a different way to design a web server, not for being the most popular web server in use. As I guess youre a Ruby developer, do you have any opinion on whether Unicorn ought to be seen as notable? Viam Ferream (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Unicorn *might* be notable, but I really can't say for sure. The fact that Gunicorn is notable, does not, however, offer evidence that Unicorn is. However "notability" for Wkikipedia is not quite the standard English definition, rather it's as defined by Wikipedia:Notability. And while an essay and not policy, Wikipedia:Notability (software) is good advice to follow. I'm not an admin, so I can't see the deleted article, but the problem is clear from the PROD notice: the article was unsourced (and that state had persisted for over a year), and the notability of the subject was never established. If those fail to happen, the article will be deleted. If you want the article undeleted and userfied (put into your user space so you can work on it), the deleting admin is the person to ask. Add some references and establish notability (and good references will generally do that), and we can move it back to the main space. Rwessel (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Viam Ferream: I created quick stubs to describe the technology stack of popular Ruby web applications like Discourse, Mastodon or Diaspora, and so I covered the Mongrel successors, including Unicorn (web server).
For the notability, there are references, books about Ruby or computer science conference papers, strongly indicating Unicorn was used as the preferred web server before Puma (web server) appears. The stubs are fully sourced.
I'd guess the "weird forking model" is they try to work in a single thread, to avoid any multithreading issues. The popularity seems only a question of usability (they don't ask modification of software or heavy configuration) and performance (benchmarks from Twitter or Deliveroo speaks about requests per seconds). The sources in the Unicorn and Puma article contains some hints about the adoption reasons.
But this is historically incorrect. Matz never coined POLS or POLA himself; that was in particular pragdave who coined this.
So when the article claims "attempted to distance ruby from xyz", then this is not historically correct. Matz was not the one who used POLS/POLA; that came from others, so how could he "distance" ruby from it, if ruby never followed POLS or POLA? This is simply inaccurate what the wikipedia article claims right now. Whoever wrote it clearly did not know the history of ruby from matz point of view. It should be reworded. 80.110.94.82 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xose.vazquez: please stop adding changelog-like material to this article without prior discussion. We are already in the "discuss" phase of bold, revert, discuss after the History of Ruby AfD succeeded (albeit without much participation); I don't want to have to get more people to say content such as a "table of versions" is cruft and unencyclopedic.
This is more of a personal note on your conduct, but the way you've been handling this situation has been frustrating. You did not participate in the AfD and it seems like you didn't want to participate in the discussion we were having after my bold BLAR. Discussion is paramount to Wikipedia's growth as an encyclopedia, and I'm open to reasonable debate about whether or not documenting notable changes to software is Wikipedia's job. Gracen (they/them) 15:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]