[#5218] Ruby Book Eng tl, ch1 question — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

13 messages 2000/10/02

[#5404] Object.foo, setters and so on — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

OK, here is what I think I know.

14 messages 2000/10/11

[#5425] Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

18 messages 2000/10/11
[#5427] RE: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — OZAWA -Crouton- Sakuro <crouton@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:49:46 +0900,

[#5429] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...> 2000/10/11

Thanks for the input.

[#5432] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:53:41 +0900,

[#5516] Re: Some newbye question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "D" == Davide Marchignoli <marchign@di.unipi.it> writes:

80 messages 2000/10/13
[#5531] Re: Some newbye question — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/10/14

Hi,

[#5544] Re: Some newbye question — Davide Marchignoli <marchign@...> 2000/10/15

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5576] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/10/16

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

[#5617] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2000/10/16

Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> wrote:

[#5705] Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>

There has been discussion on this list/group from time to time about

16 messages 2000/10/20
[#5712] Re: Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@...> 2000/10/20

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:

[#5882] [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive — hipster <hipster@...4all.nl>

Hello fellow rubyists,

21 messages 2000/10/26

[ruby-talk:5756] Re: Array#insert

From: Mark Slagell <mslagell@...>
Date: 2000-10-22 18:25:33 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5756
> 
> Yes, but destructiveness is not bad in general,

Sure, that I agree with. Otherwise I'd be a Lisp devotee I suppose, and
not hanging around here bothering people. :-)

> especially in
> object-oriented programming, it's part of the nature.

But that puzzles me. I don't view functional style and the OO paradigm
in any kind of conflict, unless one takes the former to its
bondage-and-discipline extremes; the flexibility of OO is such that it
supports a functional style at least as well as the parentheses-laden
languages we love to hate.  To say "line=f.readline.chomp" instead of
"line=f.readline; line.chomp!" means to already be thinking
functionally, but it's all a matter of degrees.

I recognize that choices made about a language's syntax and libraries
both reflect and reinforce a particular programming style, or range of
styles -- it starts and ends with the author, with small influences from
the community along the way, and that's as it should be.  A wish to be
able to stay a good distance away from Perl underlies much of my
squeaking here, speaking in the definite minority on most of these
issues. Ruby still seems like the closest thing out there to what I
want, so I don't mean to be pushy about it.

  Mark

In This Thread