From: "Adam P. Jenkins" <thorin@...>
Date: 2005-07-21T02:25:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby/Rails as a starter language?

Ryan Leavengood wrote:
> Adam P. Jenkins said:
> 
>>You're trying to make the distinction more profound than it really is.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Hi Adam,
> 
> You are making a valiant stand for Java (which is currently my development
> language at work), but I think your arguments will mostly fall on deaf
> ears on this Ruby list.
> 
> Not that Rubyists are completely close-minded, but as someone who codes
> both Java and Ruby, whenever I go back to Java from Ruby I feel as if my
> hands are tied. I suspect others feel similarly. Going from Ruby->Java is
> just not a path I see realistically happening.
> 
> So while Java may be able to be massaged to work sort of like Ruby when it
> comes to classes and meta-programming, it is still hackish, verbose, and
> not nearly as cleanly integrated.

Hi Ryan,

My motive isn't really to make a valiant stand for Java, just to correct 
some obvious misinformation.  I also use both Ruby and Java at work, and 
like you I'd much rather use Ruby for most things I do than Java.  But 
it still irks me, and doesn't seem like it does the Ruby community any 
service, when bogus reasons are given for preferring Ruby, like that 
Java doesn't have class objects or metaprogramming.  I am aware that 
some of the participants in this list aren't really interested in 
objective comparisons of Ruby and other languages, but are more 
interested in just finding justifications for why Ruby is the best.  My 
comments were aimed at the rest of the people, who might be interested 
in a more objective comparison, which includes the fact that Java does 
allow a lot of the same kinds of metaprogramming as Ruby, though with a 
bit more verbosity.

Adam