Author here, thank you for doing this! Really nice. And yes, I was not counting empty lines, and also, no code golfing. :)

Thank you for making a C# variant, with K&R braces it's just 102 lines, and 1.5 MB binary (quite a few un-strippable baseline bits like integer formatting) when AOT compiled with 9 preview, we've come a long way...

I'd too probably write it in Ruby using classes basically just as modules and not much else. It's totally fine using simple arrays and hashes in Ruby for data structures. For example, unlike in many other languages, board could be just a hash of booleans addressed by "tuples", like @board = {[x1, y1] => true, [x2, y2] => true}, which makes neighbours check trivial, while board will be sufficiently compact.

Author here, I'm really glad it helped! Thank you for reading. :)

Ditto. I did the same with GoLang a couple of years back, but didn't aim for clean/terse code: https://github.com/jedib0t/go-mines

Author here, that's a good point. Most of my readers are Ruby developers and no one doing Ruby regularly uses the macOS Ruby. I'll throw in a simple Dockerfile for easier running.

radanskoric's sibling comment is correct (but flagged).

Most Ruby devs I know are on Macs and none of them are running the ancient version Apple installs. Just like with most other languages, even JavaScript, you'll want to get a current or recent version.

Either use a version manager like RVM (popular) or ASDF (my favorite tool since it handles nearly all languages). You can also install Ruby with Homebrew, but I don't recommend using Homebrew for managing programming languages since you may want different versions on different projects.

Thank you again for notifying me about this. I emailed dang and he restored my account right away! :)

Good question, you might want to email dang hn@ycombinator.com and ask - it goes back to 2022 and might be related to excessive self promotion, something else, or even an accidental click.

Flagging mines is a nice convenience/usability feature, but if you're aiming for minimalism, the game can be considered complete when mine locations are the only un-revealed tiles.

If you're a beginner you do.

Indeed, it's an important omission.

Not a great analog since the gridgame dependency being pulled in is already over 200 lines.

Sounds like a pretty dysfunctional team, not due to code review or agile.

When I’ve found myself on teams like this, as a junior engineer I just did what was asked to get along and get experience. As a senior engineer, I often looked for a new job. As a staff engineer, I push back with as much politeness as I can.

Many engineers out there have traded getting it done for perfection. That’s not good judgement.

And those would be valid comments within a production system maintained by a team. If you think code written as a play exercise and as part of professional software environments should be the same then you need to start listening to your team.

I'm a senior, worked with Ruby for a long time. There's nothing wrong with this code, it's just Ruby, using some of its new features (which all look pretty organic, style-wise). It's been obvious to me for a while: good languages have a fair balance of paradigms. While Ruby is more OOP than others (everything is an object) it also has some fairly nice functional features that are, in the context of the language, are actually fairly easy to comprehend even by junior devs.

I'm beginning to think that the true reason for Ruby losing popularity is because some find it somewhat difficult to wrap their heads around it, but I don't know why -- some people maybe have a completely different mental model and processes in their heads? For me, from day one I got my hands on the language it seemed perfectly natural. Now I program in several languages with various features and properties (compiled/interpreted, strong/weak types, procedural vs OOP vs functional) -- all I can say is it is joy to write programs in Ruby. About the only things I dislike about it are the following: 1) they could've come up with better ways to signal code-block boundaries (keyword `end` is used with way too many different constructions) and, recently, 2) Type implementation where types are declared in separate files, which is probably sub-optimal. For (2), however, I do understand why it is the way it is: they needed something that would not break an already more or less complex argument definition rules (named arguments, default values for named arguments, etc.) and also something that was a layer on top of the language and not so much part of the language itself -- so maybe it's better this way?

Btw, anyone used types in Ruby? Any tips? I'm still avoiding this, wondering if it'd be a boilerplate and a constant annoyance and waste of time. But does anyone think there is a legitimate way to use it and benefit from it in Ruby (language being interpreted and not compiled)?

[flagged]