From: Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@...>
Date: 2004-01-29T22:57:04+09:00
Subject: Re: Project: in Ruby, Perl?

Hello Phil,

Thursday, January 29, 2004, 6:09:56 AM, you wrote:


PT> 2) Real support for OO with a very nice Smalltalk-like model. OO is not a
PT>    do-it-yourself, ad-hoc afterthought as it is with Perl.

As far as i know the complete OO System will be rewritten in an
incompatible way which is not so bad because only a few people seem to
use OO Perl at the moment because of it problems.

PT> 3) enhanced productivity (in my experience, anyway, YMMV).
PT> 4) very easy to write C extensions for Ruby. (to be fair, this has
PT>    improved for Perl as well since the Inline modules have become 
PT>    available)

Have you ever looked at C extensions in the past. They are much much
more readable and easier to write then a Ruby extension. I mean not
only 100% but a factor 10 easier.

PT> Sure, Ruby's RAA isn't as large as Perl's CPAN, but you'll find a lot more
PT> functionality built-in to Ruby's libraries than you will in Perl - for
PT> example, look at all of the built in functions for arrays in Ruby vs.
PT> Perl - so you'll find yourself reaching outside for special libraries less
PT> often than you need to with Perl.

I tried to use the NNTP module some time ago. This is so terrible
buggy and a lot of others ruby modules are of the same bad quality.
First it should work alright, then elegance comes in.

PT> Perl was great in it's day (5 to 10 years ago), but times have changed.

That's true. But i would count on python more then on ruby.

-- 
Best regards,
 Lothar                            mailto:mailinglists@scriptolutions.com