From: Denys Usynin Date: 2002-09-08T01:42:15+09:00 Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby > |I think this whole Least Surprise Principle is a load of bullshit that > |is invoked far too often for no good reason. It has a fancy name, but I > |translate it to myself as "when matz made Ruby he made sure the way it > |worked made sense to him". Excuse me, isn't it how all languages are(or > |should be) made? > > Although I admit the "Principle of Least Surprise" has bigger impact > than I expected, I still disagree all languages are following the > principle. Well yes, I went way too far saying all languages follow that, but I still think many do. Ruby is among the most elegant and consistent languages out there, but it's by no means out there alone. > Language designers are often too near-sighted in designing his/her > language. They often focus too much on "what it can do". But in > reality we have to focus on "how it can solve" or "how it makes you > feel in programming". I think this is a difference. agreed, there are plenty of languages that are inconvenient. > I also admit that Ruby offers bunch of surprises when you meet it for > the first time. But once you become familiar with it, you will feel > comfortable programming in it. many other languages work exactly the same way. I will go further and say any language that wants to be widespread and efficient MUST work this way. > Believe me, not all languages are made equal. Some (or many) > languages just don't make you feel comfortable even after you've > mastered it. Their design just don't care how you feel while you > program in. > > If "POLS" is not a proper word for the concept, and you have a better > slogan for the concept, I'd glad to switch. POLS is just as good a word as any other, and I think it's an excellent concept. What I was trying to say is not that the principle doesn't work but that it's not a new idea, and many other languages were designed to follow it, even though the creators never say or even realize it.