From: Denys Usynin <usynin@...>
Date: 2002-09-08T03:02:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby


> As others have pointed out, C++ does not fit the rule "And just as with every
> other language, once you have a feel for it, you can do a lot of things just by
> pure intuition."
> 

I don't _fully_ agree(see below). A couple of years ago I  had to write 
a relatively non-trivial project in C++/STL from scratch (not what I 
normally do at work) that ended up being something like 700k of code. 
While working on it I very seldom had to look things in the reference.

I think how often you have to pull your hair and go read the reference 
is a good measure of how natural/intuitive/consistent is the language.

Now, of course C gives you a lot more room to make mistakes but that's 
the price you pay for the additional power of C. If you want screaming 
fast code you won't do it in Ruby, right? The mistakes you make in C are 
usually not because the language syntax/strusture/behavior confuse you 
but because you simply forget something. In Ruby there is less to 
remember (no dealloc!) and the price is performance. But does this mean 
C is less intuitive? I don't think so.

C++ and Ruby are different tools for different tasks, and it's not fair 
to compare them. As far as I am concerned, they both follow the 
Principle of the Least Surprise, except that C can only go so far 
following it and must stop before it compromises its ability to do its job.