From: Andrew Hunt <andy@...>
Date: 2002-09-07T04:45:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby

Kent Starr says:

	>While complexity theory has been
	>around since the 70's (some would say off and on since the time of the
	>Egyptians) but was not widely known outside of very tight academic
	>circles before the mid-90's.

Hmm.  As it turns out, I keep finding out about more and more neat 
theories that aren't currently well known.  Odds are I'll be embarassed 
by one of those twenty years from now :-)

	>> I think that's a load of crap; exposing native types as non-objects
	>> in Java, for instance, is to me one the largest failings of that language.
	>> 
	>
	>Unfortunately, it is worse than just a "mere load of crap"

Well, I was *trying* to be being polite...

	>had to replace their Java-based e-commerce solution in order to
	>efficiently scale up. (My contact solved their problem with perl/MySQL.)

Interesting.  What was the specific issue that killed them?  In other
words, was it badly written Java, or just the fact that it was Java?

	>I suspect, as time unfolds many more such issues will arise, especially
	>regarding maintainability.  

Unfortunately, I agree.  Maintainability is one of those dark subjects
that no one wants to talk about.  Dave and I were part of an OOPSLA
workshop last year on Software Archeology that talked around those
issues; this year Brian Marick has asked us back to talk about
Software For Life.  It's an interesting and underappreciated subject,
but as you note, I suspect that will change in time as well.

	>OO isn't taught well IMO. "Pickaxe" is a rare exception. 

Thanks!

	>The irony is
	>that Ruby is closely modelled in accordance with contemporary thinking
	>in modern theoretical physics where everything -is- an object (in
	>concept, not necessarily name). The physical world in which we live is
	>de facto Rubyesque. :-)

Ha ha!  I love it!  God is a Ruby programmer, after all :-)

/\ndy