[ruby-talk:11970] SV: Not Ruby, for me, for the moment at least

Michael Kreuzer wrote:
> I wrote on this newsgroup last weekend about how I was considering using
> Ruby as a scripting language.  I thought I'd post the results of that
> consideration here.

Thank you!

> The languages were assessed using five criteria:  (1) whether there were
> strings attached to the distribution deal (eg a GNU Public
> Licence meant my
> programs had to be covered by the GPL too and that's a
> significant string);

As far as I remember, Ruby is covered by an Artistic License which is less
restrictive than GPL.

> (2) whether the interpreter etc compiled readily using Dev Studio
> on Win98;

Development on Win98? That's a tough, limited and buggy road to go. I'd
recommend NT for development as someone earlier pointed out. What is the
reason for choosing a Win98-compiled-out-of-the-box-language, when almost
any other platform can do better and still have a Win98-platform as a
target?

> (3) whether there was example AI code available, especially examples of
> embedded use of scripts;

One of the first things I read about Ruby (somewhere I don't recall -
probably www.ruby-lang.org), was that it has been used for AI, so I find it
strange if no examples are available. Someone more knowledgeable help me out
here! Is it only on japanese sites that such examples exist?

 (5) whether the end product was reasonably small.  NB
> 'language design' issues, as typically defined in computer science 101,
> didn't figure at all.

Regarding language design issues, I find it hard like others to believe that
you would not care. What kind of project is it, that doesn't need to
consider the language to express the terms of a problem domain?

市he key to maintainable, efficient, and evolvable programs isn't particular
language features. It is the ability to develop concepts needed for a
solution and to express them clearly in a program. Language features exist
to make such expression simple and direct.ォ
 - Bjarne Stroustrup, "Why C++ is not just an Object-Oriented Programming
Language", OOPSLA, October 1995

Very clear and readable score by the way! Even though it's harsh and might
have been useful with notes attached to it.

> Python it is.  Ruby needed very little start up time invested in learning
> the language, but there's an enormous amount of time that's needed to
> translate the Unix source to Windows & that's time I don't have.

Not a bad choice anyway if time is of your concern.

What I don't understand is, that if time is so much of your concern, then
why not get a ready out-of-the-box-solution with the Ruby windows-installer
(thanks pragmatics!) or likewise with Python or any other chosen language?

> Anyway, have fun - Michael

You too. Let us posted if your considerations change for any reason. It
would be interesting to know.

Dennis Decker Jensen