From: bruno modulix <onurb@...>
Date: 2004-11-04T06:48:45+09:00
Subject: Re: A concise description of Ruby?

James Britt a �crit :
> bruno modulix wrote:
> 
>> James Britt a �crit :
>> (snip)
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> [*]  Show of hands: How many people write "__self__" as a routine 
>>> part of of their pseudo code?
>>>
>>
>> Err... actually, it's 'self', not '__self__', and since it's pretty 
>> common in OOPLs to have a 'self', 'this' or like keyword to refer to 
>> the current instance in methods, I don't see where's the problem. Now, 
>> how many people would write @attr instead of this.attr or self.attr in 
>> their pseudocode ?-)
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, quite right, but that's why I would say that Ruby is *almost* like 
> pseudo code.
> 
> My pseudo code tends to look like
> 
> foo() {
>  ...
> }

I don't write pseudo-code no more - I just write Python !-)

> No self, no def.
> 

I always used qualified names in OO code, even with languages that don't 
require it (C++, Java, VB - if VB qualifies as a language, but that's 
another troll^M^M^M^M^Mquestion !-).

Bruno