From: Greg Lorriman Date: 2005-09-19T11:31:39+09:00 Subject: Re: Language recommendations from ruby persons.... I hope to recieve replies to my questions, and I value other persons subjective experience of "enjoyment", as asked for in my original post. Thankyou for your effort at replying to my original post. "Devin Mullins" wrote in message news:432E1A27.4060002@comcast.net... > Greg, > > What languages you deem "enjoyable" is very much a personal choice, and > one determined only through exploration and experimentation. It sounds > like you've explored -- you seem to have a decent list of languages of > which you're aware. Now you have to do the second part -- experiment with > them. > > That's why I didn't answer your question directly. Rather, I latched onto > the only context-independent criterion of yours that I found -- > "not imperative" -- and gave you a list of non-imperative languages. For > me, Ruby's been the most fun language I've run into. 'swhy I'm here. BASIC > was fun back in the day. But YMMV. > > Yes, my post included humor. Possibly, my sense of humor is different from > yours. > >>APL, Eiffel, Erlang, Haskell, Io, Joy, Lisp, Lua, Mathematica, Mozart/Oz, >>OCaml, Prolog, REXX, Scala, Scheme, Self, and Smalltalk are all the >>legitimate, 'alternative' languages that I recognize (by name only, for >>the most part) from that wiki page, so maybe that makes them more popular. >>Now get to Googlin'. >> >> >>> ? I can't believe my eyes. >> > What makes you question them? APL? Check extremeprogramming@yahoogroups. > There's a guy there who swears by the language. > >>Can someone tell me if I am talking to a troll? >> > If by "troll" you mean, "just writing to see what kind of reaction I can > get out of you," then, no. If by "troll," you mean, "guy who doesn't type > anything of substance," then you've got yourself a matter of opinion, > there, and mine would probably be different from yours. Historically, at > least, ruby-talk seems to have a opinion of me that lies somewhere between > neutral and positive. > > Devin > > Greg Lorriman wrote: > >>"Devin Mullins" wrote in message >>news:432DEC60.7060601@comcast.net... >> >>>There's plenty of places you can find recommendations for languages. >>> >>hmmm. I didn't ask for other places for recommendations for other >>languages. I have already visited many places; I am surprised you did not >>infer this from my post. >> >>I posted in the hope of personal opinions of Ruby programmers >>specifically, since they bring a more pertinant spirit to my quest >>(particularly enjoyableness). >> >> >>>- this mailing list (the archives will have references to all the ones >>>you meantion, plus other ones such as Io, and D, and boo, and Groovy - of >>>which Io is the only one you might call "far out" - and, oh yeah, >>>Smalltalk) >>> >> >>Seems like you did and didn't read my post at the same time. Very strange. >> >> >>>Here's two languages you're not likely to find immediately. Presented for >>>no apparent reason. >>> >> >>....I prefer reasons. >> >> >>>1. http://www.erights.org/e/satan/ -- I haven't actually read this paper, >>>but it seems topical, so maybe somebody else will, and provide us a book >>>report. :) >>>2. http://www.madore.org/~david/programs/unlambda/ -- The purest, >>>simplest programming language ever, and it's functional, to boot. Smart >>>combination of a few simple constructs allows for a whole world of >>>flexibility. >>> >> >>sounds kinda interesting. But is it enjoyable? Is it practical? I was >>careful to list what I am looking for quite prominently. >> >> >>>Have fun. >>> >> >>I am trying. >> >> >>>Devin >>>APL, Eiffel, Erlang, Haskell, Io, Joy, Lisp, Lua, Mathematica, Mozart/Oz, >>>OCaml, Prolog, REXX, Scala, Scheme, Self, and Smalltalk are all the >>>legitimate, 'alternative' languages that I recognize (by name only, for >>>the most part) from that wiki page, so maybe that makes them more >>>popular. Now get to Googlin'. >>> >> >> ? I can't believe my eyes. >> >>Can someone tell me if I am talking to a troll? >> >> >> >> >> > > >