From: Dave Burt <dave@...>
Date: 2006-02-24T00:03:36+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby as First Language

Robert Klemme wrote:
> OTOH there is no *direct* access to system libs (as from C for
> example).  For that you would have to write a C extension.  Still, I think
> to initially learn to develop software Ruby is a pretty good choice.

Just to knock down your only negative point a little, Robert, there is DL, 
which makes accessing C libraries about equal in pain to doing it in C, no?

Me, I'm all for learning Ruby as a first language. My first language was 
Basic, and I do reckon that it probably doesn't matter too much what you 
pick, but an important factor is being able to actually produce something 
cool/fun/useful as you go. (Games, for instance.) Learning a second language 
will be significantly easier after you've learnt one already, almost 
regardless of the language.

Ruby's productive, flexible, and crosses paradigms other languages are built 
around. Perhaps it's less simple than, say, Java or Basic, but I think it 
more than makes up for it in the 
being-able-to-get-something-done-quickly-and-easily department. The 
paradigm-crossingness of it may mean it's easier to pick up a wider range of 
languages after you've mastered Ruby; it's a bit like Lisp, a bit like 
Basic, a bit like Java.

Choose Ruby.

Cheers,
Dave