[ruby-talk:00784] Re: plugging Ruby

On 31 Aug, GOTO Kentaro wrote:
> 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. 

No, no, no, no! While it may attract some people, it may be a reason for
others *not* to chose Ruby!!! But instead to switch to the old known
Perl, that have not the restrictions of the GPL. :-(

GPL means no commercial developement without giving away the sources and
the right to everybody to copy and distribute the resulted program!

If I would find a language, that is under the GPL, I would not learn it,
knowing I never could use it for my every-day-earn-salary programming.

Do please don't use GPL! Write e.g. `free' instead!

[...]

>>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 :-)

I tell about my feeling. Not anybody have to share it, right ;-)

> 
>>> 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? :-)

No, not really. I have done much of my work with `sed', `awk' and `sh'.
But one day, as I found the restriction in AWK, that only maximum of ten
files can be open the same time, I was switching to Perl. Then I have
found, that where I have used three tools previously, I could use one
now.

But in the end, if I read my response again, you are right. It is a
clever substitution of AWK, yes! ;-)))

[...]

>>
>>See my comments above pls. Furthermore I think you should mention
>>following things, if possible:

[...]

>>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.

I have not meant it as to be included into the flier. I have only
mentioned some facts. I would wish, that we could find a way to
introduce a shadow of these possibilities in such a plugger! We would
not have to mentioned all of them in such detailed manner. :-)))

> 
> -- gotoken

\cle