From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2004-10-21T00:59:50+09:00
Subject: Re: A concise description of Ruby?

I like most of the suggestions so far.

I don't have a profound definition myself, though when I try to describe 
the language I prefer to avoid mentioning "scripting" (favoring 
"interpreted") or comparisons to other languages.

For the latter, I'm not versed enough in Smalltalk, Python, or whatever 
else gets tossed in to some algebraic Ruby description to give any 
follow-up detail.  And I've heard people say, "If it's so much like X, 
why not just use X?"

Although the phrase has been glommed by Python fans, I believe it more 
appropriate to say that Ruby is almost like executable pseudo-code[*]. 
There is very little extraneous syntax to interfere with simply 
expressing what you want to do.

It's a language designed for people, not processors.

James


[*]  Show of hands: How many people write "__self__" as a routine part 
of of their pseudo code?