From: bonefry <bellarchitects@...>
Date: 2005-10-01T02:01:45+09:00
Subject: Re: IBM vs. Microsoft vs. ... Ruby?


James Edward Gray II wrote:
> bonefry you sure throw a lot of opinion around, but you always forget
> to qualify it as such.  :(

That's not the reply I expected. Sorry if I am getting myself
missunderstood. I don't want to start a flame, OK ?

> > Debugers are indeed overrated, but that doesn't mean they aren't
> > usefull. How can a unit test show you why the exit point of your
> > recursive function is not reached for example ?
>
> No problem here, since Ruby ships with a debugger.

I don't understand why this answer. I know Ruby ships with a debugger.
I was replying to Kev Jackson when he said unit testing is enough.

> > Emacs/VI are good but they have an almoust vertical learning curve.
> > Notepad, I don't think so. And I really miss features of Eclipse
> > like ...
>
> You list four text editors/IDEs here, so I hardly think that's
> representative.  I can name at least twice as many more that I know
> are Ruby aware.
>
> And doesn't Eclipse have a Ruby plug-in?

Oh, good, now we can engage in pissing contests over which one knows
more editors. Good for you. I tried the Eclipse plugin and it has an
annoying bug in it's syntax highlight.

> > Unfortunatelly, without a faster VM, we won't have those libraries too
> > soon. Because if they are done in pure Ruby they might get too slow,
>
> You are totally using guesswork here and it's poorly researched guess
> work at that.

No, I am using experience from PHP who has the same problem. Google for
NuSOAP and why it's not everyone's favorite choice ;)

> > and if they are done in C, the programmers working on them have to be
> > proeficient with 2 languages. Before having all kinds of usefull
> > libraries, in my oppinion, the VM's speed should increase.
>
> Many people know C, so there's not much of a leap here.  The entire
> Core Ruby team, just to name one example, fits your profile perfectly.

Well, we must not rely on the Core Ruby team to provide us with the
libraries we need. Ruby is also attractive because it is easy to learn.
And there might be programmers out there that have good ideeas but
don't have C knowledge. Also, pure Ruby libraries, should be easier to
install on a server, or am I wrong ?

> > And Ruby currently chokes on O(n).
>
> Oh please!  That's not even intelligent enough to provoke a comment.
> Now you are simply ignoring reality.

Err, although I may have exagerated a little, when was the last time
you did more than linear alghorithms in Ruby ?

I like Ruby and I don't want to start a flame. You're the one that
apparently tries to. All I wanted was to highlight 2 things Ruby lacks
in a nice conversation.

Please don't embaress the Ruby comunitty, that's know for it's
politeness, with such rude posts, OK pal ?