From: gregarican <greg.kujawa@...>
Date: 2006-09-30T13:40:12+09:00
Subject: Re: "Succinctness is Power", by Paul Graham

Agreed. The only way that I consider Ruby as being more succinct
compared to other languages such as C++, C, Java, VB, etc. is that
there's less curly braces, and no redundant typing of new static
variables. God, I'm glad I can choose what I program in!

If I was to make a string in Java I would say:

String myString = new String("foo");

But if I was in Ruby I would just say:

myString = "foo"

I know it's not like I'm typing the Rosetta Stone, but Ruby saves me a
lot of needless typing (bad pun intended perhaps).


M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Rich Morin wrote:
> > This is probably old news to many here, but I found it
> > to be an interesting read, with implications for Ruby.
> >
> >   "Succinctness is Power"
> >   Paul Graham
> >
> > -r
> I'm totally underwhelmed by Paul Graham's writings. First of all,
> succinctness in programming languages gives rise to languages like
> Forth, Scheme/Lisp, and APL. While all three have their cults, and all
> three are still in use in their well-defined niches, they are not viable
> candidates for most programming projects for one reason or another.
>
> Second, the "conventional wisdom" is that the power of Ruby comes from
> dynamic typing, flexible syntax, metaprogramming, and a kind of "upward
> compatibility" from Perl.I don't think succinctness is a factor.