Link Details

While everybody knows Ruby uses less code, this article doesn't properly demonstrate it.

The article uses ActiveRecord from the Rails framework to insert records, and doesn't use a comparable framework for C#

If the author had used a comparable framework for the C# version, or better yet, use an example that doesn't require a framework, then the comparison would be more valid.

There seems to be loads of these comparisons around at the moment...

Most of them seem to use either meanlingless metrics, or unfair comparisons

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I actually mention both those points in the comparison. In fact, I mention that there is a C# implementation of ActiveRecord that could be used for a better framework comparison. The point (that I failed to make, I suppose) that I was trying to make is that Ruby's implementation code is very compact and elegant for a simple task when compared to the other language that I'm currently invested in: C#. Near the end of the article I mention that the actual vs. numbers are more like 5 vs 1, which admittedly is not colossal. Either way, I'm always trying to improve the quality of my articles and truly appreciate the honest feedback. Most sites just flame you and don't give any constructive criticism, but dzone constantly seems to inspire more intelligent conversations. Thanks again!

I look forward to more of your articles in the future... I just subscribed to your blog.