From: Piers Cawley <pdcawley@...>
Date: 2001-10-24T16:38:36+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23149] Re: Bruce Eckel's opinion of Ruby

Emiliano <emile@iris-advies.com> writes:

> Sean Russell wrote:
> 
>> > Yes, to enforce a certain coding format. I'm no great fan of
>> > python myself, but one of the downsides (for me) of Perl & Ruby
>> > is the utterly
>> 
>> There is always a balance between maintainability and productivity.
>> I still believe that the source of Pascal's failure was the
>> obnoxious rigidity. Python drops the rigid typing, but keeps rigid
>> syntax, which is the my main pet peeve about Python.
> 
> This is where we agree...
> 
>> Perl is at the other end of the spectrum, which is just as
>> obnoxious. However, I'd choose Perl in all of its obtuse
>> obscifuscation that Python's draconian dogma any day. I think Ruby
>> struck a decent balance.
> 
> ... and this is where we disagree, a bit. Ruby certainly allows for
> very elegant coding. It also allows for job-security coding. Python
> makes that a lot harder.

As does Perl. As does almost any programming language you care to
name. And if you aren't practicing Code Review on your large projects
then you deserve all the job security code you get.

-- 
Piers