From: dblack@...
Date: 2002-09-29T11:29:27+09:00
Subject: Re: R (was: adding overload to ruby)

Hi --

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Hal E. Fulton wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <dblack@candle.superlink.net>
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 4:27 PM
> Subject: Re: R (was: adding overload to ruby)
>
>
> > Hello --
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> >
> > > Now that Ruby >= (Smalltalk+Perl)/2, we need R >= (C+(C++)+Java)/3.
> > > A better C is what I want, I guess.
> >
> > The '=' is historically incorrect; the original assertion was:
> >
> >    Ruby > (Smalltalk + Perl) / 2
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > (See <http://www02.so-net.ne.jp/~greentea/ruby/>.)
>
> I just realized why this interesting statement
> has always made my brain itch a little.
>
> Assuming that the values of Smalltalk and Perl
> are not equal (and who in the world, in any camp,
> would say they are?) the average of the two has to
> be greater than one of them and less than the other.
>
> Since we're not told whether greentea prefers
> Smalltalk or Perl (though I could guess), he is
> in effect saying, "Ruby is better than one of
> these languages and worse than the other; but I
> won't tell you which is which."

I'm actually following up on what Bill points out in the next post.
I think he's right.  For example:

    R == 10
    P ==  2
    S ==  3

    R > (P+S)/2    => true
    P == S         => false
    (R<P) || (R<S) => false


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