Why not Ruby?

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Xah Lee, Dec 31, 2008.

  1. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
    for those interested.

    * Why Not Ruby?
    http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html

    plain text version follows:
    --------------------------------------

    Why Not Ruby?

    Xah Lee, 2008-12-31

    Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.

    The articles i read in detail are:

    * Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)¨J. Gives general overview.

    * Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes"
    http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/

    * Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10.
    http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour

    The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The
    "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete
    intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't
    teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it
    because his opinions i respect.

    Q: Will you learn Ruby?

    No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
    than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study,
    functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far
    more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's
    also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or
    power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby.

    Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant?

    Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level
    lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't
    think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript,
    Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal
    spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it
    based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than
    Scheme, and probably same as Javascript.

    I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
    code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
    that.

    Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience?

    No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl,
    Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge
    of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time
    (roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the
    time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like
    Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo-
    jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely
    nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp,
    Scheme lisp.

    Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then?

    Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical
    utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all
    heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a
    academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs
    such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot
    more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc.

    Q: Do you condemn Ruby?

    No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
    languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
    are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See:
    Proliferation of Computing Languages.
     
    Xah Lee, Dec 31, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 31 Dic, 18:55, Xah Lee <> wrote:
    > Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
    > for those interested.
    >
    > * Why Not Ruby?
    > http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html
    >
    > plain text version follows:
    > --------------------------------------
    >
    > Why Not Ruby?
    >
    > Xah Lee, 2008-12-31
    >
    > Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
    >
    > The articles i read in detail are:
    >
    > * Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)¨J. Gives general overview.
    >
    > * Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes"http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/
    >
    > * Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10.http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour
    >
    > The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The
    > "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete
    > intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't
    > teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it
    > because his opinions i respect.
    >
    > Q: Will you learn Ruby?
    >
    > No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
    > than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study,
    > functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far
    > more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's
    > also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or
    > power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby.
    >
    > Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant?
    >
    > Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level
    > lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't
    > think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript,
    > Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal
    > spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it
    > based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than
    > Scheme, and probably same as Javascript.
    >
    > I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
    > code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
    > that.
    >
    > Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience?
    >
    > No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl,
    > Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge
    > of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time
    > (roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the
    > time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like
    > Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo-
    > jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely
    > nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp,
    > Scheme lisp.
    >
    > Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then?
    >
    > Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical
    > utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all
    > heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a
    > academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs
    > such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot
    > more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc.
    >
    > Q: Do you condemn Ruby?
    >
    > No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
    > languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
    > are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See:
    > Proliferation of Computing Languages.


    This is not a Ruby group.
    I recommend you to go waste your time there.


    --- Giampaolo
    http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib
     
    Giampaolo Rodola', Dec 31, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Xah Lee

    Tim Greer Guest

    Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:

    > This is not a Ruby group.
    > I recommend you to go waste your time there.


    That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
    irrelevant news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's best
    to just filter the guy's posts.
    --
    Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
    Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
    and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
    Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
     
    Tim Greer, Dec 31, 2008
    #3
  4. Xah Lee wrote:
    > Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
    > for those interested.
    >
    > * Why Not Ruby?
    > http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html
    >
    > plain text version follows:
    > --------------------------------------
    >
    > Why Not Ruby?
    >
    > Xah Lee, 2008-12-31
    >
    > Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
    >
    > The articles i read in detail are:
    >
    > * Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)¨J. Gives general overview.
    >
    > * Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes"
    > http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/
    >
    > * Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10.
    > http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour
    >
    > The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The
    > "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete
    > intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't
    > teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it
    > because his opinions i respect.
    >
    > Q: Will you learn Ruby?
    >
    > No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
    > than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study,
    > functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far
    > more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's
    > also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or
    > power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby.
    >
    > Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant?
    >
    > Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level
    > lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't
    > think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript,
    > Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal
    > spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it
    > based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than
    > Scheme, and probably same as Javascript.
    >
    > I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
    > code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
    > that.
    >
    > Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience?
    >
    > No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl,
    > Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge
    > of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time
    > (roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the
    > time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like
    > Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo-
    > jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely
    > nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp,
    > Scheme lisp.
    >
    > Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then?
    >
    > Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical
    > utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all
    > heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a
    > academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs
    > such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot
    > more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc.
    >
    > Q: Do you condemn Ruby?
    >
    > No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
    > languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
    > are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See:
    > Proliferation of Computing Languages.
    >


    Kenny Tilton, 2008-12-31

    Q: Why not Xah's review of Ruby?

    >> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.


    A. Three hours? I've had belches that lasted longer than that. Of
    course, a true master can tell a lot in just a few hours of coding with
    a new language...

    >> The articles i read in detail are:


    Q: Read?!

    A: That's what he said.


    hth,kzo
     
    Kenneth Tilton, Jan 1, 2009
    #4
  5. Xah Lee

    Guest

    On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <> wrote:

    >Xah Lee wrote:
    >> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
    >> for those interested.
    >>
    >> * Why Not Ruby?
    >> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html
    >>
    >> plain text version follows:
    >> --------------------------------------
    >>
    >> Why Not Ruby?
    >>
    >> Xah Lee, 2008-12-31
    >>
    >> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
    >>
    >> The articles i read in detail are:
    >>
    >> * Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)¨J. Gives general overview.
    >>
    >> * Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes"
    >> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/
    >>
    >> * Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10.
    >> http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour
    >>
    >> The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The
    >> "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete
    >> intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't
    >> teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it
    >> because his opinions i respect.
    >>
    >> Q: Will you learn Ruby?
    >>
    >> No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
    >> than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study,
    >> functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far
    >> more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's
    >> also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or
    >> power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby.
    >>
    >> Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant?
    >>
    >> Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level
    >> lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't
    >> think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript,
    >> Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal
    >> spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it
    >> based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than
    >> Scheme, and probably same as Javascript.
    >>
    >> I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
    >> code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
    >> that.
    >>
    >> Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience?
    >>
    >> No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl,
    >> Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge
    >> of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time
    >> (roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the
    >> time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like
    >> Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo-
    >> jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely
    >> nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp,
    >> Scheme lisp.
    >>
    >> Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then?
    >>
    >> Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical
    >> utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all
    >> heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a
    >> academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs
    >> such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot
    >> more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc.
    >>
    >> Q: Do you condemn Ruby?
    >>
    >> No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
    >> languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
    >> are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See:
    >> Proliferation of Computing Languages.
    >>

    >
    >Kenny Tilton, 2008-12-31
    >
    >Q: Why not Xah's review of Ruby?
    >
    >>> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.

    >
    >A. Three hours? I've had belches that lasted longer than that. Of
    >course, a true master can tell a lot in just a few hours of coding with
    >a new language...
    >
    >>> The articles i read in detail are:

    >
    >Q: Read?!
    >
    >A: That's what he said.
    >
    >
    >hth,kzo


    Be carefull what you say. If they pay me I would rip your and Xah's
    guts out in a second.

    sln
     
    , Jan 1, 2009
    #5
  6. Xah Lee

    r Guest

    Hey Lee,
    I really like your overview of the official Python tut, it's spot on,
    and your study of OOP was quite fascinating! I like people who are
    honest and not afraid to go up against the status quo, although i will
    admit you go a little further than i might at times :). But the world
    needs an enema from time to time. "Revolution is my name!"

    Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his
    insights of languages and tech is fascinating. The man lives in a
    world driven by common sense, and you know what they say --"Common
    sense is the least most common thing"-- just look around at the
    responses here.

    I come from a different world than IT, and I thought initially the IT
    world would be filled with intelligent, free thinking, and open minded
    people... BOY was i wrong! I would not turn my back on these people
    for a second, lest you catch a knife in it!

    I find it laughable how people hate you so much, but would still take
    the time to reply to your post, just so they can call you a troll. You
    are not a troll Xah, but your posts do expose the true trolls and
    their minions. Instead of engaging in any sort of intellectual
    conversation, they spit 3 grade insults and try to discredit you.

    There is nothing wrong with a person expressing their opinion on any
    subject. Apparently some of you need to get laid and calm down a
    little. Xah has just as much right as anyone here to post his
    thoughts, even if they are off topic. Look, if you don't like what he
    is saying, DON'T F'IN READ IT!

    Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
    have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
    ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
    and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are
    from my supposed "brothers" here at c.l.py. Just letting you know
    there are open minded people out here. I would hate to live in a world
    that did not contain an Xah lee.

    Keep up the good work my brother, you have much more to give!
    Thanks
     
    r, Jan 1, 2009
    #6
  7. Xah Lee

    Jason Rumney Guest

    On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <> wrote:

    > The man lives in a world driven by common sense


    "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
    populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
    ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
    start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
    debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
    not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
    more carefully sometimes.
     
    Jason Rumney, Jan 1, 2009
    #7
  8. >>>>> "r" == r <> writes:

    r> Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
    r> have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
    r> ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
    r> and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are
    r> from my supposed "brothers" here at c.l.py. Just letting you know
    r> there are open minded people out here. I would hate to live in a world
    r> that did not contain an Xah lee.

    Since Usenet has neither "stars" nor "ratings", you are hallucinating.

    Care to elaborate?

    --
    Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
    <> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
    Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
    See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
     
    Randal L. Schwartz, Jan 1, 2009
    #8
  9. Xah Lee

    Peter Wyzl Guest

    "Randal L. Schwartz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>>>> "r" == r <> writes:

    >
    > r> Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
    > r> have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
    > r> ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
    > r> and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are
    > r> from my supposed "brothers" here at c.l.py. Just letting you know
    > r> there are open minded people out here. I would hate to live in a world
    > r> that did not contain an Xah lee.
    >
    > Since Usenet has neither "stars" nor "ratings", you are hallucinating.
    >
    > Care to elaborate?


    Google groups' corrupting influence...

    P
     
    Peter Wyzl, Jan 1, 2009
    #9
  10. wrote:
    > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <> wrote:
    >
    >> Xah Lee wrote:
    >>> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
    >>> for those interested.
    >>>
    >>> * Why Not Ruby?
    >>> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html
    >>>
    >>> plain text version follows:
    >>> --------------------------------------
    >>>
    >>> Why Not Ruby?
    >>>
    >>> Xah Lee, 2008-12-31
    >>>
    >>> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
    >>>
    >>> The articles i read in detail are:
    >>>
    >>> * Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)¨J. Gives general overview.
    >>>
    >>> * Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes"
    >>> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/
    >>>
    >>> * Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10.
    >>> http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour
    >>>
    >>> The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The
    >>> "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete
    >>> intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't
    >>> teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it
    >>> because his opinions i respect.
    >>>
    >>> Q: Will you learn Ruby?
    >>>
    >>> No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
    >>> than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study,
    >>> functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far
    >>> more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's
    >>> also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or
    >>> power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby.
    >>>
    >>> Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant?
    >>>
    >>> Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level
    >>> lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't
    >>> think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript,
    >>> Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal
    >>> spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it
    >>> based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than
    >>> Scheme, and probably same as Javascript.
    >>>
    >>> I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
    >>> code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
    >>> that.
    >>>
    >>> Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience?
    >>>
    >>> No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl,
    >>> Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge
    >>> of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time
    >>> (roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the
    >>> time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like
    >>> Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo-
    >>> jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely
    >>> nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp,
    >>> Scheme lisp.
    >>>
    >>> Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then?
    >>>
    >>> Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical
    >>> utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all
    >>> heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a
    >>> academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs
    >>> such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot
    >>> more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc.
    >>>
    >>> Q: Do you condemn Ruby?
    >>>
    >>> No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
    >>> languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
    >>> are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See:
    >>> Proliferation of Computing Languages.
    >>>

    >> Kenny Tilton, 2008-12-31
    >>
    >> Q: Why not Xah's review of Ruby?
    >>
    >>>> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.

    >> A. Three hours? I've had belches that lasted longer than that. Of
    >> course, a true master can tell a lot in just a few hours of coding with
    >> a new language...
    >>
    >>>> The articles i read in detail are:

    >> Q: Read?!
    >>
    >> A: That's what he said.
    >>
    >>
    >> hth,kzo

    >
    > Be carefull what you say. If they pay me I would rip your and Xah's
    > guts out in a second.


    Sorry, my new President has banned drama so I will only be responding
    pleasantly to civil comments. (This has been a non-responding response.)

    Peace,k
     
    Kenneth Tilton, Jan 1, 2009
    #10
  11. In comp.lang.lisp r <> wrote:

    > Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his
    > insights of languages and tech is fascinating. The man lives in a
    > world driven by common sense, and you know what they say --"Common
    > sense is the least most common thing"-- just look around at the
    > responses here.

    Might hold true for some rants, but most of it's tl;dr drivel. For
    instance, his critique of Lisp's homoiconicity is completely off-target.

    > I come from a different world than IT, and I thought initially the IT
    > world would be filled with intelligent, free thinking, and open minded
    > people... BOY was i wrong! I would not turn my back on these people
    > for a second, lest you catch a knife in it!

    So-called "IT" is driven by capitalistic impulses. Dijkstra and his
    followers get dismissed as ivory tower intellectuals.

    FUT warning.

    --
    You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything
    away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything he’s no longer
    in your power — he’s free again. -- Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn
     
    Stanisław Halik, Jan 1, 2009
    #11
  12. Xah Lee

    r Guest

    On Jan 1, 2:05 am, Jason Rumney <> wrote:
    > On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <> wrote:
    >
    > > The man lives in a world driven by common sense

    >
    > "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
    > populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
    > ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
    > start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
    > debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
    > not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
    > more carefully sometimes.


    I think if you will consider society as a whole, you will see that
    most people don't display much sense at all. "Joe Blow" only cares
    about paris hilton, britney spears, or janet jackson wardrobe
    malfunctions. The only thing they contribute to society is human
    excrement. So --"Common sense is the least most common thing"-- really
    means there exists no sense as a commonality.

    This can apply to higher educated people too, even Guido. Go and read
    Xahs take on the Python official tutorial, you will find your self
    agreeing with everything that he says. Guido filled it with so much
    fluff and off topic BS, causing the learning process to shut down. The
    only kind of person that might find it enjoying would be a fellow
    Computer Science Graduate. I did not know it at the time but this
    contributed to my late understanding of classes and regexes. And being
    such a fanboy of Python and carrying such a high respect for Guido
    that is hard for me to say, BUT it is the TRUTH nonetheless. Guido has
    no business writing tutorials anymore, WHY you ask. Because he is too
    smart, and too much on the inside. He cannot relate to the n00b
    pythoneer, he has crossed the Rubicon. Less fluff more simple examples
    are the key to quick learning. My love for python has blinded me to
    some of the atrocities that exist here. I have many more examples from
    the Official-TUT than Xah covered.

    Don't take my word, judge for yourself...
    http://xahlee.org/perl-python/xlali_skami_cukta.html

    here is Xah's take on OOP, very good reading for beginners and
    Gurus...
    http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html

    If all Xah did was come here and say "Hey, python sucks donkey
    dicks!", i would pay him no mind. But he brings much intelligence, and
    vigor to an otherwise boring, and sometimes mindless newsgroup. What i
    like about him is his out-side-the-box thinking style. He does not
    give in to this BS "Proper Society" wants to push onto us. He is a
    real rebel, but WITH a cause! And the cause is to bring common sense
    back to a world of fluff an BS jargonisms. I don't always agree with
    his thoughts, but most the time he's spot on. Open your min c.l.py.
    Lest it close forever.

    eliminate the life decline...
    its time to change...
    can't stay the same...
    Revolution is my name!
    -Phil Anselmo-
     
    r, Jan 1, 2009
    #12
  13. r <> wrote:

    [Why not Ruby?]

    Becasue it is off topic in CL.perl.M just as in any other NG he posted
    to.

    >Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his


    Oh my good, the idiot discovered alter egos.

    >There is nothing wrong with a person expressing their opinion on any
    >subject. Apparently some of you need to get laid and calm down a
    >little. Xah has just as much right as anyone here to post his
    >thoughts, even if they are off topic.


    Exactly everyone's point. He has exactly the same right as anybody else
    which is exactly that NOBODY has the "right" to post off topic posts.
    Sometimes they may be tolerated, on rare, special occasions even be
    welcome. But by and large they are as disturbing as playing 'Love me
    tender' during a perfomance of the Walkuere. I don't want to hear Elvis,
    I paid my money for Wagner! If I wanted to listen to Elvis, then I would
    go to an Elvis concert.

    >Look, if you don't like what he
    >is saying, DON'T F'IN READ IT!


    He has been plonked a loooooooong time ago. It's just he newcomers, who
    still respond to him. And no his alter ego with the unpronouncable name
    of rt8396.

    >Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
    >have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
    >ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
    >and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are


    There are neither profiles nor stars or ratings on Usenet. Keep you
    made-up nonsense to yourself.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Jan 1, 2009
    #13
  14. Xah Lee

    r Guest

    Xah Lee,
    > I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
    > code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
    > that.


    You could not be more right Xah, the use of "end" in a language as
    high level as Ruby is redundant, and idiotic. There are a few things
    about Ruby i really like, but this "end" business is blasphemy. If
    ruby did not use indentation, i would see the need for "end", or
    braces, or whatever, but why use both indentation AND the "end" word?
    Such stupidity. I guess Mats thought Ruby would look too much like
    Python, ARE YOU KIDDING MATS?, you already took so much from Python
    anyway, dropping the end statement won't change that. And heck, you
    will gain many new users with out it's archaic redundancy!!!!

    I must say at first i did not like the each method but it has grow on
    me because of its space saving attributes. There are also some nice
    shortcuts in Ruby that do not exist in Python. I am beginning to think
    the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and
    Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear
    syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus. I would probably lean more
    towards python scoping and classes than ruby, but python classes need
    a little less redundancy also. Of course pythons list, dict, strings
    in my opinion just can't be beat, and regex forget-a-about-it! Python
    rules here. Even though Ruby has built in support, python's is much
    more elegant. I really like pythons handling of modules and
    module.class.method syntax.

    Both languages have much to offer, i believe though Python has a
    better base, it just needs some cleaning up, and shortcut syntax so
    moderate/Gurus don't develop carpal tunnel too early :)
     
    r, Jan 1, 2009
    #14
  15. Xah Lee

    Tomasz Rola Guest

    On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, wrote:

    > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <> wrote:
    >
    > >Xah Lee wrote:
    > >> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
    > >> for those interested.
    > >>

    >
    > Be carefull what you say. If they pay me I would rip your and Xah's
    > guts out in a second.
    >
    > sln


    Too much champagne? A guy (XL) is sometimes off topic and I don't always
    agree with his postings - if I find the subject somewhat worthy, I usually
    skim through it, this is how I have found myself knee deep in this
    strange exchange between XL's supporters and opponents. And his website is
    big like a magazine and full of strange, sometimes not interesting or hard
    to assess stuff (it needs time to read and time is hard to find nowadays).
    But sometimes, what he writes is informative, too. A bit redundant but
    still, I would give him a small "plus", rather than "zero" or "minus".

    But I do not remember him being blunt or agressive.

    Regards,
    Tomasz Rola

    --
    ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. **
    ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home **
    ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... **
    ** **
    ** Tomasz Rola mailto: **
     
    Tomasz Rola, Jan 1, 2009
    #15
  16. Xah Lee

    Paul Rubin Guest

    r <> writes:
    > I am beginning to think
    > the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and
    > Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear
    > syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus.


    You might like Tim Sweeney's POPL talk:

    http://www.st.cs.uni-saarland.de/edu/seminare/2005/advanced-fp/docs/sweeny.pdf

    > Of course pythons list, dict, strings in my opinion just can't be beat,


    On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary
    implementation in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map. One of these years
    I'll get around to writing one.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jan 1, 2009
    #16
  17. Xah Lee

    Fuzzyman Guest

    On Jan 1, 8:32 pm, Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    [snip...]
    > > Of course pythons list, dict, strings in my opinion just can't be beat,

    >
    > On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary
    > implementation in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  One of these years
    > I'll get around to writing one.


    Care to save me the effort of looking it up and tell me what Data.Map
    does that Python's dict doesn't?

    I guess if it is functional then every mutation must copy and return a
    new data structure? (Which will be much more efficient in Haskell than
    in Python - Haskell can share most of the underlying data whereas
    Python would have to create a new dict every time. At least it only
    stores references.)

    Michael Foord
    --
    http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
     
    Fuzzyman, Jan 1, 2009
    #17
  18. Jason Rumney <> writes:

    > On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <> wrote:
    >
    >> The man lives in a world driven by common sense

    >
    > "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
    > populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
    > ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
    > start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
    > debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
    > not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
    > more carefully sometimes.


    I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
    points. And they argue the man because he refuses to be brow beaten by
    those who do not like to be criticised or are too think skinned. I
    rarely find his posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp
    tutorial is far and away better than anything else out there for the
    programmer moving to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and
    supportive evidence and rarely with "because I'm experienced and thats
    the way it is" - something not every one takes the time to do. He is
    clearly intelligent, thoughtful and experienced if a little lacking in
    finesse at times. The world needs more Xah lees.

    --
    important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday. ~Dennis Gabor, Innovations: Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
     
    Richard Riley, Jan 1, 2009
    #18
  19. r <> writes:

    > On Jan 1, 2:05 am, Jason Rumney <> wrote:
    >> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > The man lives in a world driven by common sense

    >>
    >> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
    >> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
    >> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
    >> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
    >> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
    >> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
    >> more carefully sometimes.

    >
    > I think if you will consider society as a whole, you will see that
    > most people don't display much sense at all. "Joe Blow" only cares
    > about paris hilton, britney spears, or janet jackson wardrobe
    > malfunctions. The only thing they contribute to society is human
    > excrement. So --"Common sense is the least most common thing"-- really
    > means there exists no sense as a commonality.
    >
    > This can apply to higher educated people too, even Guido. Go and read
    > Xahs take on the Python official tutorial, you will find your self
    > agreeing with everything that he says. Guido filled it with so much
    > fluff and off topic BS, causing the learning process to shut down. The
    > only kind of person that might find it enjoying would be a fellow
    > Computer Science Graduate. I did not know it at the time but this
    > contributed to my late understanding of classes and regexes. And being
    > such a fanboy of Python and carrying such a high respect for Guido
    > that is hard for me to say, BUT it is the TRUTH nonetheless. Guido has
    > no business writing tutorials anymore, WHY you ask. Because he is too
    > smart, and too much on the inside. He cannot relate to the n00b
    > pythoneer, he has crossed the Rubicon. Less fluff more simple examples
    > are the key to quick learning. My love for python has blinded me to
    > some of the atrocities that exist here. I have many more examples from
    > the Official-TUT than Xah covered.
    >
    > Don't take my word, judge for yourself...
    > http://xahlee.org/perl-python/xlali_skami_cukta.html
    >
    > here is Xah's take on OOP, very good reading for beginners and
    > Gurus...
    > http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html
    >
    > If all Xah did was come here and say "Hey, python sucks donkey
    > dicks!", i would pay him no mind. But he brings much intelligence, and
    > vigor to an otherwise boring, and sometimes mindless newsgroup. What i
    > like about him is his out-side-the-box thinking style. He does not
    > give in to this BS "Proper Society" wants to push onto us. He is a
    > real rebel, but WITH a cause! And the cause is to bring common sense
    > back to a world of fluff an BS jargonisms. I don't always agree with
    > his thoughts, but most the time he's spot on. Open your min c.l.py.
    > Lest it close forever.


    Great post and I agree with you 100%.

    --
    important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday. ~Dennis Gabor, Innovations: Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
     
    Richard Riley, Jan 1, 2009
    #19
  20. Tim Greer <> writes:

    > Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
    >
    >> This is not a Ruby group.
    >> I recommend you to go waste your time there.

    >
    > That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
    > irrelevant news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's best
    > to just filter the guy's posts.


    No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.

    How is a comparison article not relevant when he is trying to stimulate
    discussion about alternative languages for modern development? Most news
    readers feature a kill thread command if you are not interested in the
    content. Certainly less extreme or ignorant than killing all posts from
    someone who clearly has interesting things to say about development
    practises and tools.
     
    Richard Riley, Jan 1, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Horace Nunley

    why why why does function not work

    Horace Nunley, Sep 27, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    471
    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=
    Sep 27, 2006
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    923
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  3. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,078
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  4. Skybuck Flying
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    689
    tragomaskhalos
    Aug 25, 2007
  5. The Higgs bozo

    Why is Ruby 1.9 not called Ruby 2.0?

    The Higgs bozo, Dec 2, 2008, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    95
    Ron Fox
    Dec 3, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page