[ruby-talk:9372] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages

> Larry> Ada 95 generics are a far cleaner solution than C++ templates.

That's as maybe. I don't use Ada95, and to my embaressment I only have a
passing familiarity with Ada95 and its generics. But I do know that Mr
Stepanov chose to move from Ada95 to C++ to implement his STL. Why? I am not
sure, and since you dont give any reasons here or later on exactly why Ada95
is better than C++ I can only take your word for it. In any case, I'm sure
no-one here is interested in a fight over languages per se.

> > How much do you read code compared to
> > how much that code is executed? Carts and horses.
>
> Most code is read many more times than it is written.

I understand that. That's why I compared reading to *execution*, not to
writing. Most code (at least, most good code) is executed more than it is
either read /or/ written. The rubber has to hit the road at some point. What
I meant by the carts and horses reference is that it is a trap to worry too
much about either syntax or semantics: what we do is write software, and the
practical use of that software is really all that matters.

[snip Ada95 flag waving]

> > Meta-programming? C++. This is far more important than anything else.
>
> Never used Lisp, huh?

Ahh Larry you seem intent on attempting to belittle me. I am familiar with
Lisp. Who can get a degree (or two) and not be? No, I don't use it
professionally. I don't use ML professionally either, but that doesn't mean
I have no understanding of FP. FP rocks, we all know that. It is also very
intellectual, and above most people. But that doesn't mean that we should
throw away the notion of functions as first-class-objects.

Now, what about continuations as first-class-objects?

Or a 'stackless' Ruby (http://www.tismer.com/research/stackless/)?

Using Win32's fibers (microthreads), I have produced
first-class-continuations for C++ under Win32. This was necessary because my
company makes MMORPG's, and I need to support thousands of threads per
process.

Could we not also produce fibres for Ruby? Now that would be neat.

Then we can have coroutines. Hey, but don't get me started.

> Larry

Christian.