From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2006-07-27T04:41:52+09:00
Subject: Re: For performance, write it in C

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 01:20:05AM +0900, Kristof Bastiaensen wrote:
> 
> True, benchmarks only measure execution speed, but they don't show if a
> given programmer will be productive in them.  I think that's also
> largely a personal choice.  Some people may be more productive in a
> functional language, some people more in Ruby. And others even in perl... :)

Actually, a well-defined functional syntax is a beautiful thing to
behold.  UCBLogo, of all things, taught me that -- and taught me to
dearly love arithmetic prefix notation.  Ruby's .method syntax is also
pretty darned nice, but I'd like to see it slightly more consistently
applied (only slightly).  There's more to syntactic and semantic style
than mere personal preference: there are concrete benefits to a
functional syntax in terms of writing consistent code, for instance.

. . . and Perl is great.  Let's not knock it just because Ruby is great
too.  Well, maybe in jest, as you've done, but it gets a far worse
reputation than it deserves.  As Paul Graham put it, ugly code is a
result of being forced to use the wrong concepts to achieve something
specific, and not of a harsh-looking syntax.  Any syntax can be
harsh-looking to someone unaccustomed to it (even Ruby's).

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The ability to quote is a serviceable
substitute for wit." - W. Somerset Maugham