From: Joao Pedrosa <joaopedrosa@...>
Date: 2005-01-11T09:25:51+09:00
Subject: Re: Serious programmers and syntax (was Re: Python vs Ruby)

Hi,

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:05:28 +0900, Lothar Scholz
<mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:
> Hello Douglas,
> 
> >> > IMHO the different syntax shouldn't be an argument for a "serious"
> >> > programmer.
> >>
> >> Please count me out as a serious programmer, then. I care deeply about
> >> the aesthetics of Ruby.
> 
> DL> Well... he did put it in quotes. I think what he means by "serious" is
> DL> someone who writes code simply to get a job done - nothing more.
> 
> For me a "serious" programmer is a highly educated and skilled person
> - nothing more. Such a person should be able to use indentation based
> syntax, curly braces or simple 100 level deepth nested COMMON-LISP
> parenthesis and feel comfortable with it (after a few hours).

Yeah, right. But all the "serious" programmers won't write all the
code that people and companies need. No one should envy the "serious"
programmers. Different people for different tasks. Once a "serious"
programmer is done, maybe a "not-so-serious" programmer will have to
maintain his ugly code. How come he dare to understand the "serious"
programmer's code? :-)

> If you count for aestetics IMHO ruby will not get that far when
> compared to python, just because the many dirty tricks and the 100
> ways to write literals and mix it with ruby code by using #{...}

When most of the code is clean, all the code is considered clean. Ask
the Python guys... :-)

I mean, most Ruby code can be considered clean, just like most of the
Python code can be considered clean, though Ruby and Python do have
some tricks up their sleeves (but again, they are quite different
anyway.)

> But talking about this is like saying that old style Oil Paintings are art,
> but Comics are not. It's just a matter of different styles. And its the
> artist who is responsible for the painting.

As long as chess is considered a sport, I'm fine with that. ;-)

Cheers,
Joao