From: "James Britt (ruby-talk ML)" <ruby@...>
Date: 2001-08-13T02:34:06+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:19614] Re: /.ed again

Agreed. I was disappointed by the article; it
gave me the sense that the author did not spend
much time learning Ruby.

People who learn about Ruby through this article
would understandably be puzzled by Ruby enthusiasts.

There was a post in the ./ thread from the author
of the IBM article explaining that he deliberately focused
on the perl/python-ish qualities to describe ruby in
familiar terms.  But by focusing on the "here's
how they're the same" aspect he elicits the
"so why do we need yet anther Perl or Python" 
reaction.

James 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Chou [mailto:hotfusionman@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 6:00 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:19561] Re: /.ed again
> 
> 
> --- Joel Wilsson <siigron@sii.linuxsweden.nu> wrote:
> > Interesting (and pleasing) to see that the comments
> > this time aren't all "we don't need Ruby, we already
> > have Python", but instead "wow, looks cool".
> 
> And this despite the fact that that developerWorks article is just about the
> poorest representation of Ruby I have seen.  I'm not saying it's _bad_ in an
> absolute sense, but reading it reminded me of every other quick language
> tutorial I've ever read.  It demonstrates essentially nothing about
> Ruby-specific things that set the language apart from others; if I hadn't read
> anything about Ruby prior to it, I would have shrugged and thought, "yet
> another programming language <yawn>".
> 
> 
> Al
> 
> =====
> Albert Davidson Chou
> 
>     Get answers to Mac questions at http://www.mac-mgrs.org/ .
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com/
>