Bruce Eckel and Ruby

[Hal Fulton]

<sigh>

I really don't understand the point of this. If you like Python, use it.
If you like Ruby, use it. I am in the latter category.

In fact, I am not opposed to learning both. At the moment I haven't time,
but later maybe I will. It's a language, not a religion.

His use of "hyperenthusiast" is interesting. Does it apply only to non-Python
people?

As for the "Ruby has better OO" argument -- Pythonists call it FUD, but it
appears simple common sense (from what Python I've seen). But I think a
large part of that is that Ruby and Python are evolutionarily different.
I've heard -- this may be wrong -- that Python's OO descends from Modula-3
or some such. I can't comment. I do know that it seems less OO than Ruby
to me (or Java, C++, Object Pascal).

As for significant whitespace -- surely it's a matter of opinion whether
this is the "right" way or not. One can make arguments in both directions.
I was initially drawn to the idea, but after playing with it, I found it
had its drawbacks.

Most (human) languages are written left to right. Are Arabic and Hebrew
"wrong" because they aren't?

Give it a rest, people.


Hal

 

[Ryan Leavengood]

<sigh>

I really don't understand the point of this. If you like Python, use it.
If you like Ruby, use it. I am in the latter category.

In fact, I am not opposed to learning both. At the moment I haven't time,
but later maybe I will. It's a language, not a religion.

I agree with you completely.

His use of "hyperenthusiast" is interesting. Does it apply only to non-Py= thon
people?

I think the problem he has (like many other Pythonistas, Javans,
Perlists, etc.) is that Ruby is getting a lot of exposure now thanks
to Rails, and he feels his livelihood might be threatened by what he
perceives as simply a fad. I think he is calling all the people who
tend to jump from fad to fad in the computing world as
hyperenthusiasts, and he may have a point. I don't think he meant that
all Ruby or Rails people were these flaky hyperenthusiasts.

Maybe he is right and Rails is just a fad, but based on how people are
reacting to it, I'm not so sure. Surely all the Railists are not just
under the spell of DHH's skilled marketing, eh? After all the best
marketing is word of mouth.

Ryan

 

[James Britt]

<sigh>

Give it a rest, people.

Amen.

Besides, we should be ranting about how Ruby is better than Lisp.





James

--

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools

 

[Jamey Cribbs]

Besides, we should be ranting about how Ruby is better than Lisp.

Ruby kicks Cobol's ass!

Jamey

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email and any materials contained in any attachments is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the intended recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender by email and destroy all copies of the original message, including attachments.

 

[Alan Garrison]

Ruby kicks Cobol's ass!

But Ruby won't be truly complete until you can do something like this:

----------------------------------
require 'inline'

class Inline::Bf < Inline::BrainF_ck # [1]
def initialize(mod)
super(mod)
end

def import(header)
@src << "#import #{header}"
end
end

class MyClass
inlineBf) do |builder|

builder.bf %q{

+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++[<++++>-]<+.+++++++..+++.[-]>++++++++[<++++>-]

<.#>+++++++++++[<+++++>-]<.>++++++++[<+++>-]<.+++.------.--------.[-]>++++++++[
<++++>-]<+.[-]++++++++++.
}
end
end

MyClass.new.test
--------------------------------


[1] http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/


Although I'd bet I'm not the first to think of this

 

[James Edward Gray II]

This has little (if anything) to do with which-language-is-better,
and everything to do with earning a living. Mr. Eckel makes a good
living teaching Java and writing about Java and consulting about
Java and the adoption of anything other than Java hurts his income.

I doubt there are very many professional programmers relying on a
single language to put food on the table. I don't think Bruce is an
exception here. He writes books about C++ in addition to Java, for
example.

I read the article and it sounded to me like it favored both Python
and C# over Java.

James Edward Gray II

 

[Jeff Wood]

------=_Part_7817_8364424.1135117879149
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Come on folks ...

Python is "different" ... it implements objects, has a number of nice
reflection things, dynamic binding, and more ...

It's got it's own syntax ... and that hasn't changed ... they do things
their way ( again "different" ).

... beyond that, the real differences were already listed off in a VERY goo=
d
post ...

To me ( and yes I've used both and built real tools with both ) ... the mai=
n
difference that works the way I think is that ruby has blocks ...

Python has lambdas, but they don't compare... that to me is the big
difference... everything else is sugar/fluff.

If you think the python way , then everything is happy in Python ville.

If you think the ruby way, then rubyopolis is your happy place...

That's all the end ... at least they are BOTH taking away from the Perl
community & the other static/compiled languages out there ...

... I respect them for being who they are and building a tool that has made
an impact on the community ( RedHat's install tool, OpenOffice using it as =
a
macro language, etc. )....

... Ruby will eventually win it's larger battles too. The reason we haven'=
t
is because we are all happy enough with our choice to use Ruby that we are
just getting our work done, not fighting wars.

Anyways, just my $0.02.

j.

--
"Remember. Understand. Believe. Yield! -> http://ruby-lang.org"

Jeff Wood

------=_Part_7817_8364424.1135117879149--

 

[Jim Weirich]

Mr. Eckel makes a good living teaching Java and writing about Java and
consulting about Java and the adoption of anything other than Java hurts
his income.

Mr. Eckel has written books and articles on C++, Java and Python. In
fact, from what I can tell, he rather prefers Python over Java. So I
don't think his livelyhood is in any danger if Java suddenly becomes
unpopular.

 

[Austin Ziegler]

<sigh>

I really don't understand the point of this. If you like Python, use it.
If you like Ruby, use it. I am in the latter category.

http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2005/12/ruby_hyperenthusiasm_and_happi.=
html

-austin

 

[Nikolai Weibull]

Most (human) languages are written left to right. Are Arabic and
Hebrew "wrong" because they aren't?

Yes?

nikolai (who wants to debate the merits of top-to-bottom writing
as well)

 

[Austin Ziegler]

I think that if you think Bruce Eckel is threatened by Ruby then you
need to read about Bruce Eckel. He is only asking "why".

No, he's not, actually. I don't think he's threatened, but he's
actively throwing stones about a language that he doesn't understand
and apparently doesn't want to understand.

Which is fine (that he doesn't want to understand, at least), but he
should stop pretending that he's just asking "why".

-austin

 

[gabriele renzi]

Nikolai Weibull ha scritto:

Hal Fulton wrote:




Yes?

nikolai (who wants to debate the merits of top-to-bottom writing
as well)

actually, I still think bustrofedic, or whatever it is spelled in
english, still is the best writing system ever. Start top left then go
right, one line down then go left and so on

 

[Bob Hutchison]

You nailed it, Ryan. This has little (if anything) to do with which-
language-is-better, and everything to do with earning a living. Mr.
Eckel makes a good living teaching Java and writing about Java and
consulting about Java and the adoption of anything other than Java
hurts his income.

Guys, this isn't a good path to follow. Bruce has been an asset to
the entire software community for years. I don't agree with
everything he says -- I don't know if anybody does, and I don't know
that that isn't exactly as he wants it -- but whatever he says *is*
his opinion and not some ploy. Furthermore, he is fundamentally on
our side... just maybe not in the details... yet.

Lose the hostility and read his article again. He is asking a fair
question. Why *would* a programmer already into Python switch to
Ruby? My question is does it matter if we can or cannot get a Python
programmer to switch?

Cheers,
Bob

 

[Austin Ziegler]

Lose the hostility and read his article again. He is asking a fair
question. Why *would* a programmer already into Python switch to
Ruby? My question is does it matter if we can or cannot get a Python
programmer to switch?

Bob:

Mr Eckel is not merely asking the question. He is asking the question
in perhaps as hostile a way as he can without saying that Rubyists are
poopyheads.

Frankly, I don't *want* Mr Eckel to become a Ruby programmer (and say
so on the blog entry I linked to earlier); he's likely to find all
sorts of "flaws" that are in fact features that I *love* about Ruby.
Similarly, a lot of the "features" he finds in Python I consider
flaws. He won't be happy in Ruby, so he shouldn't use it.

The pecuniary interests question is raised only because the first
commenter on Mr Eckel's article raised it about Mr Tate. Neither is a
legitimate question here and maligns everyone involved.

-austin

 

[Hal Fulton]

I think that if you think Bruce Eckel is threatened by Ruby then you
need to read about Bruce Eckel. He is only asking "why".

I didn't say he was threatened. But I think "why" is ultimately a
matter of taste.

It doesn't seem mysterious to me that different languages appeal to
different people.


Hal

 

[Jim Weirich]

With all due respect, Jim, I think it would be a mistake to overlook Mr.
Eckel's pecuniary interests in this debate. I was at Barnes & Noble just
this afternoon and I didn't see his name on any books about Ruby.

It would indeed be a mistake to overlook it, but I don't see the facts
supporting the conclusion.

Mr. Eckel is a strong critic of Java, particularly in the area of
checked exceptions and generics. Back when I was actually teaching Java
(6 or so years ago), his book "Thinking in Java" was one the few books
that was able to present the language without being "gushy" about it.
He frequently pointed out warts in the language. He is also an advocate
of dynamic typing over static typing and written several good articles
supporting that position. And finally, he a big fan and advocate of
Python, one of those "free, easy to learn, rewards mastery, and has
flocks of eager devotees who want to share their knowledge for free"
languages.

In short, to accuse him of being short sighted with respect to other
languages because he has a vested interest in teaching Java needs to
ignore the fact that he never been slow to critisize Java in the past
when he sees problems.

And finally, his blog entry is less about supporting Java, and more
asking the question of why Ruby over Python.

I think its simply a matter that he prefers the "Zen of Python" over the
"Ruby Way" ... a position held by many people.

 

[Jim Weirich]

Well, never let it be said that I was foolish enough to argue with Jim
Weirich

Sigh, now if I could only convince my kids of this.

 

[Phil Tomson]

I didn't say he was threatened. But I think "why" is ultimately a
matter of taste.

Right, but Eckel seemed to be suggesting that one must use a much more
objective, almost scientific method for lanauge selection (and implied that
Tate relied too much on 'preference'). In doing so he seemed to imply that
people who had chosen Python had gone through this objective, scientific
process while those who were headed in the direction of Ruby had not.

It doesn't seem mysterious to me that different languages appeal to
different people.

Agreed, however, it seems that for many years now that there have been some
doubts about whether there is room for two (seemingly similar)open source,
dynamic, OO languages which largely appeal to the same developer base.
This may actually be at the root of the animosity between the two camps:
perhaps we each have a sneaking suspicion that if we could get the good
developers from the other camp to come to ours we would be able to get a lot
further (in development of libraries, docs, VMs etc.). A couple of years ago
Ruby was the underdog, but now in terms of mindshare I think Ruby and Python are
close to parity. If the momentum continues then Ruby 'mindshare' could
outpace Python mindshare and perhaps begin to attract Python developers. That
may be seen as worrisome to some in the Python camp including Eckel. The
underlying message (reading between the lines) of some of Eckel's comments
about Ruby seems to be a message for the Python faithful to remain in the
fold.

While on the surface there seems to be a religious conflict between the two
groups, perhaps what's really going on is a competition for resources where
resources in this case are developers.

Phil

 

[Phil Tomson]

Bob:

Mr Eckel is not merely asking the question. He is asking the question
in perhaps as hostile a way as he can without saying that Rubyists are
poopyheads.

Frankly, I don't *want* Mr Eckel to become a Ruby programmer (and say
so on the blog entry I linked to earlier); he's likely to find all
sorts of "flaws" that are in fact features that I *love* about Ruby.
Similarly, a lot of the "features" he finds in Python I consider
flaws. He won't be happy in Ruby, so he shouldn't use it.

Oh, now that's going a bit over the top don't you think? I would think that
we should actually encourage Mr. Eckel to try out Ruby. We should welcome him
to instead of hanging out a sign that says "No Eckel's allowed!". Afterall,
we're the friendly language newsgroup. If Mr. Eckel comes here with questions
I would hope that we would welcome him and answer them courteously (and no
"see I told you so" type responses either).

Better to win friends than to make enemies.

Phil

 

[Phil Tomson]

If you read that article a little carefully, Bruce Eckel is mad about
Bruce Tate ignoring Python in "Beyond Java". And he has a point. Python
has been a good alternative to Java for years. And it still is.

And in my oppinion Bruce Eckel could be more valuable asset to the Ruby
community that Bruce Tate, since Bruce Tate is just spreading FUD to
sell books in my oppinion, but still ... doesn't have time to
investigate Python which is THE traditional alternative to Java.

I really hope Bruce Eckel changes his mind and releases a "Thinking in
Ruby" book.
That would be awesome.

Indeed that would be awesome. The more Ruby books the better. And when
people see someone embrace something that they formerly criticized that
definitely gets people interested (see St. Paul

So maybe we should be inviting Mr. Eckel over to try out Ruby for a while.
"Come on in, the water's fine!"

Phil