From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2009-02-12T04:00:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby vs Perl performance

--0ntfKIWw70PvrIHh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:20:19AM +0900, Igor Pirnovar wrote:
> David Masover wrote:
> > Robert Klemme wrote:
> >
> > I'm not trying to sell Perl's OO as the best thing, or=20
> > even "better". But I'm defending it as inherently less=20
> > useful than Ruby's. Someone might as easily say that=20
> > Ruby's OO is inherently less useful than Java's, because=20
> > Java does stricter (static) type-checking.
>=20
> Could you be more wrong and further from the truth? Perl can not be=20
> defended as a good OOPL, because it simply is not. It lacks so many=20
> things that what you get by using it is redundancy and more work, the=20
> things that good OO is trying to minimize if not eliminate. Secondly,=20
> what you call lack of type-checking can arguably be considered one of=20
> Ruby's big advantages over those languages that have this feature.=20
> Strictly, from a pragmatical point of view, it makes much more sense=20
> classifying objects based on what they can do rather than to which=20
> "aristocracy" they belong. It is well known fact that Ruby is based on=20
> "meritocracy" and that, semantically and/or philosophically, is=20
> orthogonal to aristocracy! True that OO is all-inclusive and flat with=20
> regards to orthogonal principles, but that makes it dramatically=20
> distinct from pyramid and geriatric hierarchical structures which are=20
> the footprint for all the procedural languages. It takes to much effort=
=20
> in procedural languages to account for that which they lack!

I'm not sure you're clear on the definition of "orthogonal".

=2E . . and OOP is actually very hierarchical in a lot of ways, at least as
practiced in most languages -- including, to a lesser extent, Ruby.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Martin Luther: "Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by
destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and
women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?"

--0ntfKIWw70PvrIHh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmTIBMACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVfawCfRP4kYIr/9zTTSPJvErwLI2dg
C4QAnA6lpIukTucZxbb8sEOE3fNOJwRg
=eXJT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0ntfKIWw70PvrIHh--