[ruby-talk:00783] Re: plugging Ruby

Hi

In message "[ruby-talk:00782] Re: plugging Ruby"
    on 99/08/31, [e-mail] <[e-mail]> writes:
>> What is Ruby?
>> 
>> Ruby is a GPL'd object-oriented programming language that is
>
>Sorry, but that is not totally true! You *can* put Ruby under the GPL,
>but you have not to ought to! You could also take matz' style license as
>contained in the README. :-))
>
>That could be *very* important. GPL is too restrictive. matz' license is
>much more free than the GPL. That is essential for using Ruby in
>commercial apps. So I would propose to change that sentence.

Maybe, Ruby's license should be separated from README and have its own
name to make referring easy. But using the word `GPL' in a such flier
maybe nice for some people. 

>> interpreted, powerful, elegant, and extensible. It features complete,
>> built-in regular expression facilities (much like Perl's), a true
>
>Hmm... I feel a little bit unsatisfied with that regexp thingy! Ruby has
>no built-in regular expressions, but a built-in syntax for creating
>instances of the class `Regexp'. That is unlike Perl and, IMHO, a big
>advantage. Both the regexp syntax (e.g. `/.../' or `%r[...]') is
>built-in as so is the class `Regexp', so we perhaps could say the
>sentence like above. But then the advantage would not be clear, I feel.

Though you are right, it is small matter, I think :-)

>> garbage collector (unlike Python), and a simple, intuitive syntax
>> (unlike Perl or Python).
>
>You like to be flamed, isn't it? ;-))) Although I find Ruby the best, I
>would not said its syntax is more clear or intuitive than Python's one.
>
>But we have not to discuss about Perl, of course :-))))

But I got to known Perl as a smart substitution of AWK in ten years
ago. Didn't you too, cle? :-)

>> In short, it is the best very high-level
>> language (VHLL) available. 
>
>Here I agree totally with you! :-)

The acronym VHLL seems drawing peoples's attraction. 

>> What do you think?
>
>See my comments above pls. Furthermore I think you should mention
>following things, if possible:
>
>	- Ruby is not only OOL as e.g. Python is, but all in Ruby is an
>	  object of a certain class. There is no artifical distinction
>          concerning types and classes as in Python or Perl.
>
>	- Every class can be extend during runtime (means after definition)!
>
>	- It does not matter for Ruby if a class is coded in C or in Ruby itself.
>	  A parent class can also be coded in C or Ruby. That is a strong feature
>	  for people who wants to extend the ruby interpreter.
>
>	- Ruby supports prototype based programming as well as the traditional
>	  class/instance scheme.
>	
>	- The true garbage collector also breaks cycle references (unlike Python
>	  or Perl). Furthermore it is *very* easy for extension programmer to
>	  deal with Ruby's GC.
>
>        - Ruby has true closures (unlike Python).
>
>	- Block of code could be given to a subroutine for later execution.
>
>	- Threads for the most platforms. They are independend from the OS native
>	  thread mechanism. So even M$-DOS could have multithreading using Ruby. :-)
>
>Okay! Enough advertisment. :-) These comments are not meant as critique,
>but as improvement proposal, ok? :-)

Nice but loquacity...  I like, if anything, Jon's original version
except the sentence about license.

-- gotoken