From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@...>
Date: 2002-09-11T03:14:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics

I think I understand and I can accept everything that you wrote.

Let me try to pose the question differently.  Suppose there is a new
language, and in concepts it is identical to Ruby.  The only difference is
syntax (and hence the parser/interpreter), where minimalist keywords and
probably the identation syntax are adopted.  Will the Ruby community like it?
(Probably no?)  Will the Python community like it?  (Probably maybe?)  Will
people who never code in Python nor Ruby like it?  (Maybe? Likely?)

Regards,

Bill
========================================================================
David.Stagner@mpls.frb.org wrote:
> Here's my take on it (and one definition for "least surprise")... i want 
> to be able to say exactly what i mean when programming, to be unambiguous. 
>  This means to not only be objectively unambiguous, but *subjectively* 
> unambiguous.  In terms of Ruby (or Perl) syntax, "unless" means the same 
> thing as "if not".  It is objectively unambiguous (and probably produces 
> identical code from the compiler).  But in a *subjective* sense, "unless" 
> is clearer than "if not" in many situations.  It implies that i *expect* 
> something to be false, rather than i expect it to be true.

> (...deleted...)