[ruby-talk:5347] Re: Is Ruby "enough better"?

Gabriel Lima <[e-mail]> writes:

[snip]
> So, having all of the above present., is Ruby really a "so much" better
> language to the extent
> that  it is worth it to make the switch?  Because I don't know about
> you, but I am not willing to
> learn YAL (Yet Another Language), just because a few better quirks or
> eye candy. If I am
> switching to another language, it really have to be substantially and
> noticeably better than
> the previous one.

Then don't. If Python (or whatever) meets your needs, stick with it. I'm
sure you will get both reasoned and passionate responses that tell you why
Ruby is better than Python, but that shouldn't make you switch. Try Ruby
and see if you like it. If you don't want to put in the effort of learning
another language, than stick with what you know.

I learned Ruby because I *like* learning languages. It turns out, I like
Ruby a lot; enough to start using it instead of Perl for some of the things
I do. I have my reasons why I like Ruby. Why don't you take the time to
find out why -- or if -- you do too?

Jim
-- 
Jim Menard   [e-mail]   http://www.io.com/~jimm/   BeOS developer #1283
"I am sure that like Java, [C#] will be a 'no pointer' language, where the
most common runtime error will be a 'NULL pointer exception'."
   -- Jerry Kott, in comp.lang.smalltalk