[ruby-talk:02988] Re: Ruby, moxilla & xpcom

Hi,

Dave Thomas wrote:

> [e-mail] writes:
>
> > JavaScript will join Perl and Python as supported languages in
> > ActiveState's powerful Komodo integrated development environment. This
> > will allow Web developers to edit, run and debug their JavaScript
> > programs in a professional-class development tool fully oriented to the
> > Web, while maintaining a close integration with the browser. In turn,
> > Perl and Python will join JavaScript as programming languages in
> > Mozilla, thereby making it easier for Open Source programmers to use
> > the Mozilla framework, and giving Mozilla developers access to
> > additional scripting technologies. "
>
> Of course given Activestate's links with Microsoft, this could just be
> a convenient way of putting all the competitors to VB in a single
> place before they are embraced, extended, etc.

This sort of issue was a big concern with the Perl community a while back,
however the (somewhat nebulous) super majority view that seems (IMHO) to have
since emerged is that this needed to be watched closely but was OK-to-good
for the time being because: (1) the forked Windows development tree was
re-merged, (2) many Perl improvements (including unicode handling, IIRC) were
going back into the common open source base, thereby benefiting everyone, (3)
MS may have been as interested in pitting Perl against Java as with pitting
VB against Perl, (4) Perl is useful for dealing with the outside world, which
MS must reluctantly increasingly do, and (5) Larry Wall was still going to
have final say about what Perl was going to be in any case.

> Once the bindings for perl and python are done it shouldn't be so hard
> to do them for Ruby since the code is all open source. Effectively it
> means mozilla could a the cross platform gui toolkit for ruby.

I think that is a great idea.

> Although I can see the attractions, I think we should think hard
> before chasing this one. Perl and JavaScript, and to a lesser extent
> Python, are scripting languages. I think Ruby is more. To me, Ruby is
> a full programming language--one where I can design, implement, and
> ship large scale applications. That is a strong differentiator, a way
> of answering people who say "do we need another scripting language?".
> Let's not rush to weaken that distinction.

Of course I agree that Ruby is in the class of full programming languages,
but I think we can think hard _and_ chase this opportunity.

However, I also think that Perl and Python are full-fledged programming
languages as well Ruby, and I have certainly previously used Perl as such. I
don't think we should demean Perl and Python (or otherwise mischaracterize
them) by calling them scripting languages, which is what bsh, csh, ksh, bash,
Tcl, and so on are. There are better ways to say that Ruby is a better OO
programming language than Perl or Python--as for instance, by simply saying
so.

You can use a fast powerful backhoe for digging ditches without fear that
people with confuse a backhoe with a mere shovel--as long as people don't
keep calling backhoes shovels. That the competition uses shovels shouldn't
detur us from employing power tools on the job, and thereby outdoing them.

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)