From: Alex Fenton <alex@...>
Date: 2008-03-28T11:19:53+09:00
Subject: Re: What is Ruby's biggest strength ?

Julian Leviston wrote:
> So, you think this:
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> for(count = 1; count <= 200; count++) {
> 	printf("%d ", count * 300);
> }
> 
> 
> is less ugly than this:
> 
> puts (1..100).map{|num| num * 300}.join(" ")
> 
> are you serious?
> 
> Even if you spell all the ruby out fully, then you end up with less  
> code, and it's much nicer looking and easier to understand, even to  
> non-programmers:
> 
> range = (1..100)
> multiplied_numbers = range.map{|num| num * 300}
> string_to_output = multiplied_numbers.join(" ")
> puts string_to_output

It's a trite example, and I agree that both your implementations are 
ugly. With any language, the unfamiliar will tend to write clumsy code 
that obscures their intention. I get the impression you're not 
interested in being persuaded, but:

1.upto(100) do | i |
   printf "%d ", i * 300
end

 >> But even if you think the syntax is
>> clean, ruby is all about cramming 4 or 5 function calls into one line
>> and sprinkling some regex's in for spice, which is creates an
>> indecipherable mess. 

You're missing the point that iterators - one of the commonest tasks - 
are easier, clearer and terser to write in Ruby than your C-esque 
for(...) loop or even a Perl "foreach @array" or "each %hash".

The fact that some people choose to use all the space which they saved 
in not writing tedious loop verbiage to cram multiple method calls into 
a line is a matter for their taste, or lack of it. I think you'd be 
hard-pushed to find examples in, for example, the ruby standard libraries.

a