From: Ben Tilly <ben_tilly@...>
Date: 2001-01-28T10:25:05+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:10000] Re: Ruby refs on Slashdot

David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> wrote:
>
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 ale@crimson.propagation.net wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, David Alan Black wrote:
> >
> > > It still bugs me.  Someone reading this:
> > >
> > >   They made a nice attempt to duplicate perl's interpolating strings
> > >   through the use of "xxxx #{var_name} xxxxx"
> > >
> > > is unlikely to realize that in fact....
> >
> > That's true. But actually I don't regard this as a major failure of
> > us, the community or peaceful Ruby advocates. I guess the author of
> > above statement will have nice awakening when he tries Ruby next time.
> >
> > And I guess he will have his awakening, as he seemed to be one
> > searching for better way to do things. Anyway, he had couple of other, 
>good,
> > remarks, which really touch the essence of Ruby too.
>
>Yes -- I certainly don't dismiss everything he said; it's more that a
>couple of things caught my attention as being in the category of "OK,
>now let's see how well Ruby has captured the functionality and flavor
>of Perl."  Not that I don't expect language comparisons.  But that's
>not exactly what this is.  It's more like an obstacle people seem to
>put in their own way, by assuming that Ruby's goal is to shadow Perl.
>Again, not to pounce on that one writer, but something like: "I'll
>have delve deeper to see how well they copied the TMTOWTDI philosophy"
>contains a whole set of presuppositions about Ruby which are going to
>make the process of *seeing* Ruby (not even understanding it, or
>liking it, but just perceiving it) much more difficult.

Well then what is Ruby?

Is it one easily describable thing?  Is there a clear Ruby
style that is truly right?

I doubt that...

> > > Or is it just a matter of the passage of time and an additive effect?
> >
> > I'd give up hope if it's only additive effect. But I've seen many
> > great things to build up the well-known "brand" by multiplicative or
> > exponential effect.
>
>How about "cumulative"?  :-)

Cumulative across people may be exponential across time. :-)

Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com