From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-07-22T18:37:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Which compiled language is closest to Ruby?


"Uwe Schnitker" <schnitkerAffenschaukel@sigma-c.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:30381f67.0407212208.69d3716d@posting.google.com...

> > > But I find it important that you can ignore this: I can, e.g.,
> > > write a global function in Ruby like I could write it in C++,
> > > even if it's implemented in a totally different way.
> >
> > Well you can, but that does not have any implications on the OO-ness.
:-)
>
> Oh, it has: You can write code ignoring the OO-ness. You don't have to
write
> a class, etc ...
>
> The OO-ness doesn't get into the way when I don't want to use it
conciously.

Maybe that's a matter of taste, but I prefer simple clean concepts so I
prefer a simple but powerful paradigma (like in Ruby) over a quite complex
paradigma (like in C++).  IMHO C++ became so complex because it (i) had to
cope with the history of C and (ii) has OO not as cleanly and consequently
implemented as Ruby.

> I consider the use of static functions inferior to free functions. In a
> language where an int is not of class type I want to write sqrt(x) but
> not Math.sqrt(x). The new Java version makes it possible to import
statics
> so that you can call them as if they were free functions even if they
are
> static ones.

Now I see: you were rather focusing on the syntax than the technical
concept of a function (as opposed to "method").

> > > (I just wish that someone with more relevant
> > > experience would write a Boost.Ruby lib soon.)
> >
> > What's in boost that we don't have in Ruby at the moment?  I don't
know
> > boost good enough, maybe you can shed some light on this.
>
> No, no, Boost.Ruby should be like Boost.Phyton, i.e. allowing for easy
> wrapping of C++ classes and functions to be used from the other
language.

Ok, I see.

Regards

    robert