[ruby-talk:16272] Re: Strange idea... exporting from a scope

Dave Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[e-mail] (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
[...]
>However, there's an interesting side effect of flat scoping. If you
>write your programs in neat little methods and classes, it really won't
>affect you much[...]
>
>And this is where I have some concerns. Right now, Ruby is fairly
>agnostic about the style you adopt. You can write Ruby as you'd write
>Perl, and you can write Ruby as you'd write Smalltalk. [...]

I am sorry.  I don't understand what you mean here.

I write a lot of Perl.  I have seen Smalltalk but not
programmed in it extensively.  I do not know what you
mean by, "as you'd write Perl" or "as you'd write
Smalltalk".  Both languages support many styles and I
believe that the style someone chooses has more to do
with the programmer than the language.  Which means
that I don't know what style you expect people to
associate with each.

For the record my usual claim is that my average
function in Perl is about 10 lines.  Grabbing a random
piece of code that I wrote today, that looks about right.
If I have a few 15 line routines, I have several 1 and 2
line ones as well.

That is how *I* write Perl...

Cheers,
Ben