From: "Michael T. Richter" Date: 2008-05-10T20:55:58+09:00 Subject: Re: "Real" Differences Between Python & Ruby --=-D3j5/LnRB/WyfJQmgsQ+ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-RVEz/q7Xg4Ye2aIyzDmi" --=-RVEz/q7Xg4Ye2aIyzDmi Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 20:32 +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote: > On 10 May 2008, at 07:31, Michael T. Richter wrote: > > Church's model of calculation is far more appealing to me and the =20 > > languages based on it -- Lisp (arguably: there's some evidence that =20 > > McCarthy stumbled over this rather than deliberately trying to model =20 > > Church), Haskell, etc. -- are increasingly the way I like to work. =20 > > But it's all smoke and mirrors. Underneath it all is a von Neumann =20 > > machine masquerading as a Church lambda expression engine. > Which of course drives home the point that all languages are about =20 > useful abstraction, allowing those who use them to discuss problem =20 > spaces without drowning in detail.=20 Oh, definitely. I'm not saying that said abstractions and layers are a BAD thing at all! It's why I've made sure I'm at least passingly familiar with ~50 programming languages (not proficient: passingly familiar). I want to keep my brain flexible with different ways of thinking about the abstractions. > In my experience Ruby is very good =20 > at this even though it lacks some of the abstraction mechanisms I like =20 > in other languages (such as Icon's goal direction), but another =20 > developer's view may differ completely. I miss some of the stupid Haskell tricks I can do like trivial function composition. I am also beginning to really enjoy Erlang's approach to parallelism and wishing I could do cool stuff like that in Ruby as easily. But overall, yes, I agree with you. Ruby gives me lots of very helpful tools for communicating abstractions succinctly and quickly. > The same logic explains why some people love Lisp above all other =20 > languages, and others would happily consign it to the bin of =20 > 'academic' languages ;) Going back to point number ... 4 was it? In my list? The Lisp community is why I'm not a Lisper. I admire the language intensely and would be a Lisp fanatic myself but for the fact that I despise its community. I have never seen such a newbie-hostile, arrogant, unhelpful set of people in my life. Whenever I hear a Lisper ask why Lisp is so unpopular, I always have to suppress the urge to hold up a mirror. (There are notable exceptions of course. Richard Gabriel, for example, is one of the nicest people in any language community. Sadly the Erik Naggums of the Lisp community outnumber the Richard Gabriels by about two orders of magnitude.) --=20 Michael T. Richter (GoogleTalk: ttmrichter@gmail.com) It's OK to figure out murder mysteries, but you shouldn't need to figure out code. You should be able to read it. (Steve McConnell) --=-RVEz/q7Xg4Ye2aIyzDmi Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 20:32 +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

On 10 May 2008, at 07:31, Michael T. Richter wrote:=

> Church's model of calculation is far more appe=
aling to me and the  
> languages based on it -- Lisp (arguably: there=
's some evidence that  
> McCarthy stumbled over this rather than delibe=
rately trying to model  
> Church), Haskell, etc. -- are increasingly the=
 way I like to work.   
> But it's all smoke and mirrors.  Underneath it=
 all is a von Neumann  
> machine masquerading as a Church lambda expres=
sion engine.

Which of course drives home the point that all lang=
uages are about  
useful abstraction, allowing those who use them to =
discuss problem  
spaces without drowning in detail.

Oh, definitely. I'm not saying that said abstractions and layers are = a BAD thing at all! It's why I've made sure I'm at least passingly fa= miliar with ~50 programming languages (not proficient: passingly familiar).= I want to keep my brain flexible with different ways of thinking abo= ut the abstractions.

In my experience Ruby is very good  
at this even though it lacks some of the abstractio=
n mechanisms I like  
in other languages (such as Icon's goal direction),=
 but another  
developer's view may differ completely.

I miss some of the stupid Haskell tricks I can do like trivial function com= position. I am also beginning to really enjoy Erlang's approach to pa= rallelism and wishing I could do cool stuff like that in Ruby as easily.&nb= sp; But overall, yes, I agree with you. Ruby gives me lots of very he= lpful tools for communicating abstractions succinctly and quickly.

The same logic explains why some people love Lisp a=
bove all other  
languages, and others would happily consign it to t=
he bin of  
'academic' languages ;)

Going back to point number ... 4 was it? In my list? The Lisp <= B>community is why I'm not a Lisper. I admire the language intens= ely and would be a Lisp fanatic myself but for the fact that I despise its = community. I have never seen such a newbie-hostile, arrogant, = unhelpful set of people in my life. Whenever I hear a Lisper ask why = Lisp is so unpopular, I always have to suppress the urge to hold up a mirro= r. (There are notable exceptions of course. Richard Gabriel, fo= r example, is one of the nicest people in any language community.&nb= sp; Sadly the Erik Naggums of the Lisp community outnumber the Richard Gabr= iels by about two orders of magnitude.)

--
Michael T. Richter <ttmri= chter@gmail.com> (GoogleTalk: ttmrichter@gmail.com)
It's OK to figure out murder mysteries, but you shouldn't need to figure= out code. You should be able to read it. (Steve McConnell)

--=-RVEz/q7Xg4Ye2aIyzDmi-- --=-D3j5/LnRB/WyfJQmgsQ+ 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) iD8DBQBIJY01LqyWkKVQ54QRAuLQAJ90zRmmJYIiaE42AbCLWzySLOTkcACfREYd Xkb/PN+qto/elY6sOxeTCdo= =Vy5H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-D3j5/LnRB/WyfJQmgsQ+--