From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2010-09-30T17:29:17+09:00
Subject: Re: The beauty of Ruby through examples

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:35 AM, F. Senault <fred@lacave.net> wrote:
> Le 29 septembre à 21:26, F. Senault a écrit :
>
> And I forgot a simple, classic, one :
>
> def factorial(n)
>  (1..n).inject(1) { |p, f| p * f }
> end
>
> def factorial(n)
>  (1..n).inject(1, :*)
> end
>
> (I don't like much the second one, it's a bit less legible.)
You see, that depends, it is more readanble to me. Probably totally
depends on the context.
For folks coming from functional languages the simple fact of using
inject's synonym might also add to readability

   (1..n).reduce 1, :*

In conclusion I prefer naming things, but the downside is that one has
to communicate names and agree about them. The explicit code block
does not have that disadvantage. However it does not trigger the
information in the brain as quickly as names do, once they are
understood.
This might indeed be one of the forces and beauties of Ruby and it
might be a good idea for OP to show that to his audience.

Cheers
Robert


-- 
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
-- Alan Kay