From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2006-02-24T00:38:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby as First Language

Dave Burt wrote:
> 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?

I forgot that.  Yeah, with DL it seems reasonably easy.  Good point!

> 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.)

I wouldn't go that far.  For example, at the time I was using BASIC there
were no functions and you had to work with GOSUB and GOTO for
modularization; for me this is a major drawback.  I rather recommend to
use PASCAL (no kidding) over ancient BASIC's.  I know current BASIC
dialects are much better - but then again, there are so many of them...

> Learning a second language will be significantly easier after you've
> learnt one already, almost regardless of the language.

I'm not sure; it certainly helps, but I guess the paradigmatic distance
(TM) of the second language makes a difference.  I guess it's easier to go
from C++ to SmallTalk (both OO) than from Lisp to BASIC...

> Choose Ruby.

Definitively! :-)

    robert