From: Julian Leviston <julian@...>
Date: 2008-04-02T11:17:08+09:00
Subject: Re: What is Ruby's biggest strength ?

Er.... I agree with you. LoL. Strange response!

Julian.

On 28/03/2008, at 1:19 PM, Alex Fenton wrote:

> 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
>
>