From: Jeremy Tregunna Date: 2007-04-18T00:45:22+09:00 Subject: Re: IDEs, syntactic vs. semantic highlighting, etc. On 16-Apr-07, at 8:53 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 07:05:05AM +0900, Tim X wrote: >> >> Getting back to Ruby, I have to say, the more I use this language >> the more I >> like it. I got into a bit of perl's OO some years back, which at >> the time, I >> liked in preference to using Java. However, I really do think ruby >> has gotten >> the whole OO stuff nailed, particularly from the perspective of a >> scripting >> language. Despite my contributions to threads on IDEs etc, I have >> to say that >> using ruby and emacs is for me a nice environment. I can see >> potential for an >> even more powerful integrated emacs+ruby environment and once I >> get a better >> appreciation of the language, may even try and see about using my >> emacs >> knowledge/experience to contribute to the ruby mode for emacs. > > That's really saying some awful things about Java -- not that I'm > all that surprised. Perl's OO is ugly as sin (and I'm a fan of Perl, > saying this). Sure, it's not as awful as PHP's and VB's OOP features, > but it's not exactly elegant by any stretch. > > I must agree that, judging by my own experience, Ruby really does get > object oriented programming substantially "right". Without hijacking this thread and making it about prototype languages, I really do find statements like this cute (not necessarily funny, but cute). While Ruby's Classes (and Smalltalk's too) are just objects, it seems weird to me to separate the two concepts. So any statement like that makes me wonder what kind of exposure to object-oriented languages one has--or rather, lack of exposure to many. -- Jeremy Tregunna.