Xah Lee wrote: > Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression > for those interested. > > * Why Not Ruby? > http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html > > plain text version follows: > -------------------------------------- > > Why Not Ruby? > > Xah Lee, 2008-12-31 > > Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today. > > The articles i read in detail are: > > * Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)�J. Gives general overview. > > * Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" > http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/ > > * Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10. > http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour > > The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The > "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete > intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't > teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it > because his opinions i respect. > > Q: Will you learn Ruby? > > No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful > than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study, > functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far > more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's > also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or > power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby. > > Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant? > > Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level > lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't > think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript, > Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal > spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it > based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than > Scheme, and probably same as Javascript. > > I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate > code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like > that. > > Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience? > > No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl, > Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge > of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time > (roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the > time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like > Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo- > jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely > nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp, > Scheme lisp. > > Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then? > > Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical > utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all > heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a > academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs > such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot > more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc. > > Q: Do you condemn Ruby? > > No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many > languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them, > are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See: > Proliferation of Computing Languages. >
Kenny Tilton, 2008-12-31 Q: Why not Xah's review of Ruby? >> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today. A. Three hours? I've had belches that lasted longer than that. Of course, a true master can tell a lot in just a few hours of coding with a new language... >> The articles i read in detail are: Q: Read?! A: That's what he said. hth,kzo
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
