From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2005-02-14T22:39:58+09:00
Subject: Re: Printing why's (poignant) guide to ruby

Navindra Umanee wrote:
> If you don't have a clue about the basics like this, you'll soon fail
> miserably whether you're using Ruby or not.  And come-on, who's going
> to explain yield and blocks to a newbie?

It wouldn't be the first, or even the second, thing I would teach, but a 
newbie needs to learn them so as to stop being a newbie.

I don't think they are as hard to explain as one might think.  (Making 
full use of them is much harder, but getting the essential idea and 
basic syntax and semantics may be pretty straightforward).
> 
> Why do you think Java became so popular?  The creators have often said
> it is because the language started out with a relatively small number
> features and wasn't overwhelming to intermediate programmers.

Perhaps *they* say that, but I don't believe it.  Java(tm) had (and has) 
major corporate marketing, and solved a number of problems in a manner 
less convoluted than C++.  It did a comparatively good job of stealing 
some of the better ideas from earlier languages (semi-OO, use of a VM + 
byte code). Plus it let you make crapplets, and the Web was just 
emerging when Java arrived.

> 
> I'm trying to context-switch to the point of view of a newbie.  I
> believe starting small is important when learning.

Very true, but Ruby does a better job than most languages at starting 
with simple basic operations and building upwards to more powerful 
constructs.

There are fewer arbitrary and inconsistent conventions and commands that 
require a lot of hand waving to explain.

A risk with any language that is designed to be good for beginners is 
that the language may end up being best for beginners.  Ruby avoids this.

James