From: "Michael T. Richter" <ttmrichter@...>
Date: 2008-04-25T23:51:52+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Minimalism

--=-FQDcOkegjtmCGgjJ6Eac
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-47NgTu6LkD/lLU4yZegc"


--=-47NgTu6LkD/lLU4yZegc
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 21:10 +0900, aidy wrote:

> I have been reading a WikiPedia piece on Minimalist Computing (http://
> tinyurl.com/6h83b3). Could we argue that Ruby is a minimal language?


I don't think any language with five (or more?) different ways of
handling something as fundamental as conditionals can be considered
"minimalist".  One aspect of "minimalist" languages would be the notion
that there's one way to do each type of thing, after all.

The languages I would consider "minimalist" by the standards set down in
the preamble (haven't read the whole article yet) might include
Lisp/Scheme, Io, Lua, Dylan (kinda/sorta), APL and its follow-ons (K and
J?), Forth and some of the simpler, more orthogonal assembly languages
(so no Intel assemblers, no Z80*s, etc.).

Ruby qualifies actually as a pretty heavyweight language where
practically every feature of the language has many different ways of
getting expressed.  (Note: I'm not saying Ruby is a bad language!  I
still use it by choice.  I'm just saying it's not minimalist by any
stretch of any imagination.)

--=20
Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter@gmail.com> (GoogleTalk:
ttmrichter@gmail.com)
I'm not schooled in the science of human factors, but I suspect surprise
is not an element of a robust user interface. (Chip Rosenthal)

--=-47NgTu6LkD/lLU4yZegc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
  <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; CHARSET=3DUTF-8">
  <META NAME=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"GtkHTML/3.16.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 21:10 +0900, aidy wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">I have been reading a WikiPedia piece on Minimalist=
 Computing (http://</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">tinyurl.com/6h83b3). Could we argue that Ruby is a =
minimal language?</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I don't think <B>any</B> language with five (or more?) different ways of ha=
ndling something as fundamental as conditionals can be considered &quot;min=
imalist&quot;.&nbsp; One aspect of &quot;minimalist&quot; languages would b=
e the notion that there's one way to do each type of thing, after all.<BR>
<BR>
The languages I would consider &quot;minimalist&quot; by the standards set =
down in the preamble (haven't read the whole article yet) might include Lis=
p/Scheme, Io, Lua, Dylan (kinda/sorta), APL and its follow-ons (K and J?), =
Forth and some of the simpler, more orthogonal assembly languages (so no In=
tel assemblers, no Z80*s, etc.).<BR>
<BR>
Ruby qualifies actually as a pretty heavyweight language where practically =
every feature of the language has many different ways of getting expressed.=
&nbsp; (Note: I'm not saying Ruby is a bad language!&nbsp; I still use it b=
y choice.&nbsp; I'm just saying it's not minimalist by any stretch of any i=
magination.)<BR>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING=3D"0" CELLPADDING=3D"0" WIDTH=3D"100%">
<TR>
<TD>
-- <BR>
<B>Michael T. Richter</B> &lt;<A HREF=3D"mailto:ttmrichter@gmail.com">ttmri=
chter@gmail.com</A>&gt; (<B>GoogleTalk:</B> ttmrichter@gmail.com)<BR>
<I>I'm not schooled in the science of human factors, but I suspect surprise=
 is not an element of a robust user interface. (Chip Rosenthal)</I>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--=-47NgTu6LkD/lLU4yZegc--

--=-FQDcOkegjtmCGgjJ6Eac
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBIEe/4LqyWkKVQ54QRAuvaAJ0Y495eQlmn9kjiGbKGrZz+k73SoQCfav++
EBHU+XhrX4QjV3WJKJ2i//Q=
=jURl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-FQDcOkegjtmCGgjJ6Eac--