[#1649] Re: New Ruby projects — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
[#1672] Re: Ruby 1.4 stable manual bug? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
[#1673] Re: Possible problem with ext/socket in 1.5.2 — itojun@...
[#1694] Conventions for our Ruby book — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#1715] Install postgresql support — Ikhlasul Amal <amal@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
[#1786] Is this a bug? — Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>
(mailed & posted)
[#1814] Objects nested sometimes. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
I am attemptiong to write a package which consists of a workspace
[#1816] Ruby 1.5.3 under Tru64 (Alpha)? — Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:
Hi,
Hi,
[#1834] enum examples? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Has anyone any examplse of using the Enumerable module? I've had a
[#1844] Minor irritation, can't figure out how to patch it though! — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
I was considering how difficult it would be to patch Ruby to accept
[#1889] [ruby-1.5.3] require / SAFE — ts <decoux@...>
[#1896] Ruby Syntax similar to other languages? — "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@...>
From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@netlab.co.jp>
[#1900] Enumerations and all that. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Thank you to the people who responded to my questions about Enumerated
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
On 16 Mar 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#1929] Re: Class Variables — "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@...>
| "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@cuna.com> writes:
[#1942] no Fixnum#new ? — Quinn Dunkan <quinn@...>
Ok, I can add methods to a built-in class well enough (yes I know about succ,
[#1989] English Ruby/Gtk Tutorial? — schneik@...
Hi,
[#2022] rb_global_entry — ts <decoux@...>
[#2036] Anonymous and Singleton Classes — B_DAVISON <Bob.Davison@...>
I am a Ruby newbie and having some problems getting my mind around certain
[#2069] Ruby/GTK+ question about imlib --> gdk-pixbug — schneik@...
[#2073] Re: eval.rb fails — "Dat Nguyen" <thucdat@...>
The doc is fine, this happens only if you try to execute 'until' block
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Dat Nguyen wrote:
[#2084] Scope violated by import via 'require'? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
Hi,
[#2104] ARGF or $< — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Has anyone any examples of how to use ARGF or $< as I cannot find much
Hi.
[#2165] Ruby strict mode and stand-alone executables. — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Some people want Ruby to have a strict compile mode.
[#2203] Re: parse bug in 1.5 — schneik@...
[#2212] Re: Ruby/Glade usage questions. — ts <decoux@...>
>>>>> "m" == mrilu <mrilu@ale.cx> writes:
[#2241] setter() for local variables — ts <decoux@...>
[#2256] Multiple assignment of pattern match results. — schneik@...
[#2267] Re: Ruby and Eiffel — h.fulton@...
[#2309] Question about attribute writers — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@gmx.net> writes:
[ruby-talk:02169] Re: Scripting and OO -- thought question
From: <h.fulton@att.net> > In his words, "If I were going to write a 60,000 > line chess program or something, I wouldn't do it > in Perl or any other script; I'd use Java or C++ > or something. And if I were doing something like > a filter, like 'munging' a text file, I wouldn't > really need OO." > I think I see his point; but perhaps one reason he > would not use a scripting language for a large > project is that he simply has never SEEN a scripting > language powerful enough for large projects. ... And other thing.... One of the reasons that many people use Java and Perl is not so much for writing giant programs as for the fact that many giant programs have in great part (in effect) _already_ been written in Java and Perl for them. These things are of course the extensive set of standard and optional extension libraries. It is Java and Perl's OO features (as troublesome as they are for novices) that made this mountainous infrastructure tolerably easy for experts to implement--but much more importantly--make it very easy to for users to exploit. This is one reason why you really want an OO language for even many fairly simple tasks. The great majority of Perl programmers never use OO directly, but almost all Perl4 programmers switched to Perl5 (among other reasons) in order to _indirectly_ take advantage of Perl5's OO features (and of course users that started out with Perl5 also do the same thing). Moreover, by using an OO language for simple stuff, you don't have to change languages for more sophisticated tasks, which relates to other points that others have previously made. This spurious and counterproductive scripting issue is another reason that I think it is exceedingly foolish to characterize languages in terms of their implementation. Since people just seem to have to have some superfluous adjectives to stereotypically pigeonhole programming languages, then I think it is much more appropriate to call languages like Perl, Python, and Ruby "very high level languages" (with Ruby being the highest level language in the series). Please pardon my end of the week humor (pun intended).... OK Ruby marketeers, let's hear you all say in unison, "Ruby is a very high level language." What did you say? "Ruby is a very high level language". What's that again? "Ruby is a very high level language." Once more more with feeling! "RUBY IS A VERY HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGE." Once more like you really mean it! "RUBY IS A VERY HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGE ! ! ! !" Great! You got it! 8-) Conrad