From: "Kroeger Simon (ext)" <simon.kroeger.ext@...>
Date: 2005-08-19T22:27:34+09:00
Subject: Re: consistency (was: Re: Python vs Ruby!)

Hi David!

> From: David A. Black [mailto:dblack@wobblini.net] 
> Hi --
> 
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Kroeger Simon (ext) wrote:
> 
> >> According to my experience, it's because Python is just insanely
> >> inconsistent in every single way.
> >
> > examples?
> >
> > I will start with a ruby one:
> >
> > $1 to $9
> > The contents of successive groups matched in the last successful
> > pattern match.
> > In "cat" =~/(c|a)(t|z)/, $1 will be set to ``a'' and $2 to ``t''.
> > This variable is local to the current scope. {}
> 
> I don't think you'd want it any other way.  Imagine if you were using
> those variables, and you called another method also did a matching
> operation.  Your $1 and friends would be clobbered.

Ok, that wasn't about bashing ruby (I'm not that silly trying this on a
ruby ML :)) it was in response to 'Python is just insanely inconsistent 
in every single way' and I think Python isn't more or less inconsistent
than ruby (or perl, ehm, perhaps less)

Besides that. Yes I would like it another way, I don't like side
effects.
I don't want $1 to become global, but what the heck is this anyway? 
But than, it doesn't bother me that much, I would never name one of my
globals (if I use one) $1, so I can safely ignore them. 

> > $0
> > The name of the top-level Ruby program being executed.
> > Typically this will be the program's filename.
> > On some operating systems, assigning to this variable will
> > change the name of the process reported (for example)
> > by the ps(1) command.
> >
> > Actually this are two in one. If $1 to $9 are groups, I don't
> > think $0 is following the principal of least surprise.
> 
> POLS is *so* 2002... :-)  Anyway, it never meant that you didn't have
> to learn anything to use Ruby.  You have to learn that $0 is the
> filename even though the other /^\$\d+$/ variables aren't.  There: now
> you know :-)

What does bother me here is that there seems to be no other way than 
using this ugly construct. (Did I miss something?)

> > Additionally $1 to $9 aren't global despite the '$'.
> 
> That's actually good -- see above.  (Unless you'd like 1,2,3...
> themselves to be reassigned the values of your captures...? :-)  If
> you don't like $1 etc. you can always use the MatchData object
> directly.

Yep, again, this was only on inconsistency. No 'good' or 'bad'. 
Talking about good and bad I would definitaly go with the MatchData
object.

> My personal slogan for Ruby is:
> 
>    The triumph of balance over symmetry

and this worked quite well.

> and I guess one could add: the triumph of balance over mechanistic
> consistency.  Yes, abc can be a method while def is a keyword and ghi
> is a variable.  That's "inconsistent", but it has a positive, rather
> than negative, effect on the design of the language and the look of
> the code.

I was looking at Io this day (it was mentioned here multiple times) 
and from what I did see, this is realy consistent - and not ugly in 
any way.

> Don't you like it better this way?

I like ruby, realy. I can live with the quirks, but I don't think they
make a better language.
 
> David
> 
> -- 
> David A. Black
> dblack@wobblini.net

regards

Simon