From: Enric Lafont <enric@1smart.com>
Date: 2002-11-04T05:54:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Ruby


Albert Wagner wrote:

>Smalltalk is pure OOP.  Ruby is not.  In Smalltalk the "operators" are simply 
>messages to an object.  In Ruby "operators" are neither objects nor messages, 
>but are rather handled as in more conventional languages.  I don't know why 
>Matz only went part way.   This part-way-ness is also visible in other 
>aspects of the language such as "if", "while", etc.  In Ruby these things 
>also are neither object nor message. Whereas in Smalltalk, such constructs 
>are messages to a Boolean object. 
>  
>
Yes, this is one think I don't understand of the design on Ruby, it 
makes Ruby more C-alike, but looses the expresiveness of Smalltalk, when 
in fact Ruby is almost as OO pure as Smalltalk is.

>Again, what can I say? Ruby is not Smalltalk.  Large amounts of functionality 
>that in Smalltalk were written in Smalltalk, were in Ruby written in C.
>  
>
Smalltalk is writed in C also, take a look at the bytecode engine, just 
better, look at Squeak, the C code is generated by the compiler itself

>I agree with you for the same reasons you give.  I am a hater of syntax sugar.  
>  
>
I don't hate sintax sugar, I just see Sintax sugar as a poor replacement 
for the real thing, every call is a method.

When in fact the only thing you loose is the multi asignament 
capabilities, but I'm sure that I can think in a way to do it.

>This is a difference that I have grown to like.  Running back to the top of a 
>method every I need a variable name was tedious.  
>  
>
OK, I don't like to go to the top of the routine just to put a forgotten 
variable, but in C and in other languages, you can declare a variable in 
the middle of the code (where it belongs, near the place you are going 
to use it).

I'm just asking for a compiler warning telling me that some variable is 
undefined, this will really help me .

>>Why are Strings arrays of integers ? aString[0] is an integer, yes, it's
>>the way it is, but I would like to have String as an array of chars, and
>>char if you want as a descendant of Integer (nice election because a
>>Unicode String is and array of double chars i.e. integer), I don't know
>>you, but for me aString[i].chr =='x' is somewhat unnatural, because it
>>breaks the semantic of a String, so it's not intuitive for me.
>>    
>>
>
>It is not intuitive to many people.  There have been long discussions on the 
>pros and cons.
>  
>
The problem is that Ruby has no Char class, and maybe it's not needed, 
but a Char class helps.
For example
?# is an integer
'#' is a String

When in fact is neither, it is a Char. This is the problem mixed semantics.


>>Why is Ruby an interpreter ? 
>>    
>>
>
>All the things you mention are under consideration or under development.
>

Thanks God !!!  :-) (just kidding....)

>
>  
>
>>Don't get me wrong, I understand that Ruby is a young language that
>>needs some maturing, and I love how easy is to learn, it's dinamicity
>>and the fact that is a kind of mix between my loved Smalltalk, Self and
>>other languages. In fact I'm writing this because I want to understand
>>Ruby better and becasue I want to make some suggestions for future
>>releases, maybe Mr. Matsumoto would like to consider some of them
>>    
>>
>
>Most of the features I loved about Smalltalk are in Ruby.  But what I do not 
>miss from Smalltalk is fact that it is image based.  Ruby is not, and I think 
>that is a good thing.
>

Yes the Smalltalk environmet is a heavy rock to carry with it, there are 
solutions to this problem, but I also prefer the file-oriented 
programing paradign of Ruby

>I think you will find that this is a very friendly list.  Welcome.
>  
>

Thank you.

Enric