From: Kevin Smith <sent@...>
Date: 2001-01-16T16:57:27+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:9365] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages

Christian wrote:
>The more I look into Python/Ruby, the more I like C++. To avoid a rant, skip
>to the next message.

I'm a long-time C++ guy who has now written a 
couple thousand lines of "production quality" 
Ruby code. When I went back to C++ I found myself 
cursing because I missed some of Ruby's 
features.

The single biggest Ruby feature that I feel lost 
without in C++ is code blocks. Being able to set 
up simple "callbacks" the way Ruby does is just 
so sweet. C++ has nothing like it.

Other minor nits: I am now annoyed by having to 
put semi-colons everywhere, having to declare 
methods in addition to defining them, and by 
having to suply empty parens to indicate a 
function call with no parameters. I also miss the 
clean simplicity of built-in array and hash 
classes.

On the pro-C++ side, I still draw comfort from a 
clean compile. I don't think I would ever feel 
safe in Ruby without a suite of unit tests 
exercising all the things that can go wrong in my 
code at run-time.

>But who gives a care about syntax when you care about code (that is,
>expressiveness and efficiency). How much do you read code compared to how
>much that code is executed? Carts and horses. There is a real, practical,
>absolute difference between a const-reference and a non-const-reference,
>especially in distributed systems (which is why I chose such a
>non-flattering example).

Code clarity is paramount. Ruby seems slightly 
better to me, just because it requires less hand-
waving and "noise". They are both in the same 
ballpark on this, however.

Kevin