On 3/9/12 6:21 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Ary Manzana"<a...@esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message
news:jjdqe4$1oeb$1...@digitalmars.com...
Indeed, count can be used to count elements:
ruby-1.8.7-p352 :002> [1, 2, 3, 3, 3].count 3
=> 3
ruby-1.8.7-p352 :004> [1, 2, 3, 3, 3].count&:odd?
=> 4
ruby-1.8.7-p352 :005> [1, 2, 3, 3, 3].count { |x| x<= 2 }
=> 2
Interesting idea.
IMAO, this sort of "write your mind and somehow it just works" thing
only encourages lazy programming (guessing what something does without
knowing for sure, and copy-n-pasting code without understanding it,
which leads to bit rot and hideous patchwork code that houses all sorts
of subtle bugs and corner-case failures).
We also write lots of tests in Ruby. :-P
Writing plenty of tests is good no matter what, but it's an inferior
substitute for proper compile-time checks. Not that that's applicable to
this "count vs length vs size" subdiscussion, of course. Just a general
comment on the dynamic world's fairly common "lots of tests" excuse.
True. I'd like to find (or do) a language that combines both of two worlds.
I started one, but I don't have much time to continue it and also I'm
stuck with design/implementation decisions. :-P
https://github.com/asterite/crystal
(not everything in the bullet list is implemented, those are just
wishes, but everything in "samples" compiles and runs)
And other people had similar ideas:
http://whitequark.org/blog/2011/12/21/statically-compiled-ruby/
