From: dblack@...
Date: 2002-09-07T04:44:57+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics

Hello --

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 paul@prescod.net wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>
> >
> > That's the point.  I guess you don't have any problem of equivalence
> > with your language (in this case, English).
>
> I am never happy with natural language metaphors for computer languages.
> Natural languages are HARD to learn (ask Larry Wall about Japanese!).
> Computer languages should strive to be much easier. Natural languages have
> many ambiguities in them. Computer languages must drive the ambiguities
> out. The rules defining natural languages are so complicated that
> linguists can't agree on them.

Most of what's been mentioned in this thread, though, has to do more
with synonymy than ambiguity; that is, "unless" and "if not" mean the
same thing in Ruby, but neither is ambiguous.

There's also a useful distinction to be made, I think, between active
and passive knowledge of the language.  When one writes code, one can
restrict oneself to "if not" (or "if !") if one wishes to; there's no
imperative to alternate or rotate among synonyms.  So then the only
question remaining is... can one understand other people's code, even
when they sometimes say "unless" and sometimes say "if not" (or
"indexes" and "indices", or whatever)?

And the answer is... well, I can only answer for myself: I have no
memories of finding Ruby's synonyms to be a stumbling block to reading
other people's code (all else being reasonably clear :-)


David

-- 
David Alan Black                      | Register for RubyConf 2002!
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net     | November 1-3
work: blackdav@shu.edu                | Seattle, WA, USA
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav | http://www.rubyconf.com