I am sure that the designers had to juggle a massive amount of community input and feedback and I know that this is not easy. Kudos to them for (i) leading with some very apt code examples, (ii) the 4 "whys" and (iii) the multilingual support.

Speaking from experience (recently we rebuilt https://raku.org), I am sure that they will come back and optimize, but tbh this is not the priority with a new site where the hits will top out at ~ 10k / hour.

I am no great fan of animations, simpler is better imho - and I have resisted requests to add a sandbox to the Raku site since https://glot.io/new/raku does such a good job anyway... but I think Ruby is likely to appeal to a wider audience via a cool design vibe, whereas Raku is still in the early adopter / geek phase of adoption.

btw Ruby is a fantastic language!

▲

tempaccsoz5 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I once tried to try Raku years ago, but I was left really confused by the website and docs.

Clicking through the code examples on your new website, I kept being amazed at some of the great things Raku does. It's night and day in understanding the uses and purpose of the language! Thank you.

Unfortunately, as soon as I click into the "introduction" section of the docs I'm abandoned to a wall of links and am once again lost. I'll try persevere this time, but I think you could do adoption of Raku a great favour by working on organising your docs site a bit more clearly. Astro's docs are an amazing case-study on best-in-class docs layout and writing: https://docs.astro.build/en/getting-started/

▲

troupo 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I am sure that they will come back and optimize, but tbh this is not the priority with a new site where the hits will top out at ~ 10k / hour.

You don't need to "come back and optimize" if you don't start with needing a progress indicator for a "transform: scale" animation to display a single static download link. The number of hits is not relevant.

Neither do you need to do three separate fetch requests for static plain text examples that you then laboriously dump into the DOM by creating dummy elements, putting content in there, then looking up and cloning `code` tags to then dump those code tags on the page.

▲

port11 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you might have an issue with modern frontend practices. That's okay, but there's a disproportionate amount of hate towards Ruby's redesigned page. And it looks perfectly fine. HTPP/2 parallel requests aren't that big a deal, all things considered.

The website looks cool to me, makes me want to try Ruby.

	▲	braiamp 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		He doesn't hate Ruby's redesigned page. He is complaining about yet another example of waste of resources that clients have to do because you want your page look "dynamic". Please, make sure and be aware were these comments are being posted, a site that it's both "dynamic" and doesn't require much resources from the client.
	▲	troupo 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is a page that appeared on HN front page news. So what do you expect? People ignoring the frankly idiotic choices made that you now defend with "they will come back and optimize it"? > HTPP/2 parallel requests aren't that big a deal, all things considered. I literally see a progress counter that is for some reason required to display the most trivial animation to show ... a single static link. On a gigabit connection. All that takes up to two seconds. On that same connection the same thing happen to three purely three static examples of code that somehow need up to two seconds to appear and to shift the entire content of the page. Both are especially jarring on mobile.