Re: Why not Ruby?

[Gabriel Genellina]

En Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:00:01 -0200, r  escribió:


Steven i got you NOW!
Everybody go and look at this thread, there Mr. Makinzie butts in and
posts an off-topic question, and Steven answers it, contributing to
the off-topicalitly of the thread. And has yet to apologize for it, or


Does the word "annoyness" exist?
You're getting high scores on my ranking.

--
Gabriel Genellina

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Peter Wyzl]

"Randal L. Schwartz"  wrote in message 
news:861vvnqqzl@blue.stonehenge.com...
>> "r" == r   writes:
>
> r> Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
> r> have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
> r> ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
> r> and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are
> r> from my supposed "brothers" here at c.l.py. Just letting you know
> r> there are open minded people out here. I would hate to live in a world
> r> that did not contain an Xah lee.
>
> Since Usenet has neither "stars" nor "ratings", you are hallucinating.
>
> Care to elaborate?

Google groups' corrupting influence...

P 


--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[r]

On Jan 2, 6:54 pm, Gerry Reno  wrote:
> There's been almost 50 responses to this rubbish post. Could you please
> all stop!

Donde es Xah Lee?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[r]

Hey Lee,
I really like your overview of the official Python tut, it's spot on,
and your study of OOP was quite fascinating! I like people who are
honest and not afraid to go up against the status quo, although i will
admit you go a little further than i might at times :). But the world
needs an enema from time to time. "Revolution is my name!"

Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his
insights of languages and tech is fascinating. The man lives in a
world driven by common sense, and you know what they say --"Common
sense is the least most common thing"-- just look around at the
responses here.

I come from a different world than IT, and I thought initially the IT
world would be filled with intelligent, free thinking, and open minded
people... BOY was i wrong! I would not turn my back on these people
for a second, lest you catch a knife in it!

I find it laughable how people hate you so much, but would still take
the time to reply to your post, just so they can call you a troll. You
are not a troll Xah, but your posts do expose the true trolls and
their minions. Instead of engaging in any sort of intellectual
conversation, they spit 3 grade insults and try to discredit you.

There is nothing wrong with a person expressing their opinion on any
subject. Apparently some of you need to get laid and calm down a
little. Xah has just as much right as anyone here to post his
thoughts, even if they are off topic. Look, if you don't like what he
is saying, DON'T F'IN READ IT!

Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are
from my supposed "brothers" here at c.l.py. Just letting you know
there are open minded people out here. I would hate to live in a world
that did not contain an Xah lee.

Keep up the good work my brother, you have much more to give!
Thanks
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[J�rgen Exner]

r  wrote:

[Why not Ruby?]

Becasue it is off topic in CL.perl.M just as in any other NG he posted
to.

>Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his

Oh my good, the idiot discovered alter egos. 

>There is nothing wrong with a person expressing their opinion on any
>subject. Apparently some of you need to get laid and calm down a
>little. Xah has just as much right as anyone here to post his
>thoughts, even if they are off topic. 

Exactly everyone's point. He has exactly the same right as anybody else
which is exactly that NOBODY has the "right" to post off topic posts.
Sometimes they may be tolerated, on rare, special occasions even be
welcome. But by and large they are as disturbing as playing 'Love me
tender' during a perfomance of the Walkuere. I don't want to hear Elvis,
I paid my money for Wagner! If I wanted to listen to Elvis, then I would
go to an Elvis concert.

>Look, if you don't like what he
>is saying, DON'T F'IN READ IT!

He has been plonked a lng time ago. It's just he newcomers, who
still respond to him. And no his alter ego with the unpronouncable name
of rt8396.

>Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
>have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
>ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
>and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are

There are neither profiles nor stars or ratings on Usenet. Keep you
made-up nonsense to yourself.

jue
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[r]

On Jan 5, 7:31 am, "Tim Rowe"  wrote:
> 2009/1/1 r :
>
> > I am beginning to think
> > the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and
> > Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear
> > syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus.
>
> I spent quite a few evenings looking at Ruby, and didn't find a single
> thing I liked (and I certainly didn't find it "elegant", as the
> original poster described it). What do you see in it that you think
> would be good in Python? Remember, put in too many shortcuts and
> you'll end up with code that's as unmaintainable as Perl!
>
> --
> Tim Rowe

Hello Tim,
I think mainly i was just talking out of my bum. I am forced to learn
Ruby because it is the only API available for one of my favorite
applications. I lament every day that Python was not chosen for the
API, not only for myself, but for the poor users who must deal with
Ruby's backward way of doing things. I really think Python is the best
high level language available today and teaches it's users more than
meets-the-eye. I quite enjoy writing Python code, and learned the
language very quickly despite the fact that i had no prior programming
experience, and very little computer experience in general --
indecently Ruby was the first high level language i tried :)

There were a few things initially that i -thought- i liked better
about Ruby, but after much consideration, have decided they are not
better, and are actually complete rubbish. If i had a choice i would
much rather invest my time learning Perl than Ruby. I -will- never get
over the use of "end", especially since indentation is allowed. In a
language that is as "supposedly" high level as Ruby, this is moronic-
monkey-drivel. This complete ludicrisness, coupled with archaic
thought processes, is completely redundant, bombastically asinine, and
morbidly irreprehensible. Which in turn evaluates to this plague of
human excrement we must plow through each and every day!

I could could go on and on for hours bashing Ruby, but i should
probably stop here before somebody gets upset although i am sure that
i will be viciously lambasted for what i have already said.(Pssft--
some people around here are quite touchy!) So let the tongue lashings
begin!

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Tim Rowe]

2009/1/1 r :
> I am beginning to think
> the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and
> Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear
> syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus.

I spent quite a few evenings looking at Ruby, and didn't find a single
thing I liked (and I certainly didn't find it "elegant", as the
original poster described it). What do you see in it that you think
would be good in Python? Remember, put in too many shortcuts and
you'll end up with code that's as unmaintainable as Perl!

-- 
Tim Rowe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Jack.Chu]

On Jan 1, 3:55 am, Roger  wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:55 pm, Xah Lee  wrote:
>
> > Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
> > for those interested.
>
> Who are you?
>
> In case no one tells you, you are a cocky, egotistical windbag with
> opinions that border constructive but never gets there.  Why would
> anyone care what you think?  Again, who are you?  Xah Lee?  And?  I
> didn't subscribe to read reviews on Ruby.  And I'm pretty sure anyone
> that bothers to subscribe to a group about programming has the
> wherewithal to research a language themselves and come to their own
> determiniation.
>
> Also, this is a Python group and not Ruby.  I knew I should have
> avoided this post and read the one about Nike Shoes from China.  At
> least those bits of trolling spam don't try to mask themselves as
> something worthwhile.

agree with you.

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:00:01 -0800, r wrote:

> On Jan 2, 6:45 am, Steven D'Aprano  cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:38:02 -0800, r wrote:
>> > He was not cross posting.
>>
>> You don't actually know what cross-posting is, do you?
>>
>> You've just earned a plonking for the next month. Do try to have at
>> least half a clue by February.
> 
> Steven i got you NOW!
> Everybody go and look at this thread, there Mr. Makinzie butts in and
> posts an off-topic question, and Steven answers it, contributing to the
> off-topicalitly of the thread. And has yet to apologize for it, or admit
> his screwup, but will he preach to everyone else about making off topic
> post... Pot meet Kettle; Kettle Pot!
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/
fc57c18c3cff5937?hl=en&q=recycle+bin#97254d877903bbd

No you didn't "got" Steven, as unnecessary cross posting is something 
different than answering a question that should have been a new thread 
start.

Oh, and: *plonk* for your childish annoying behaviour…

Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Gerry Reno]

There's been almost 50 responses to this rubbish post. Could you please 
all stop!

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Tim Greer]

Don Geddis wrote:

> Richard Riley  wrote on Thu, 01 Jan 2009:
>> Tim Greer  writes:
>>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
>>> irrelevant
>>> news groups.  There's no rhyme or reason to it.
>>
>> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.  How is a
>> comparison article not relevant when he is trying to stimulate
>> discussion about alternative languages for modern development?
> 
> Sometimes crossposting can be useful.  But you ought to at least be
> aware of some of the possible drawbacks, e.g. expressed here:
> http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/cross-posting.html
> 
> In particular, the usual hope by the poster is that the content is
> relevant to the union of people in the different groups, but the
> actual experience is that it is often relevant only to the
> intersection of such people.
> 
> And, moreover, that a long cross-posted thread on controversial topics
> often winds up with people talking at cross-purposes past each other,
> because they don't share enough common values to have a useful
> conversation.
> 
> In particular, the poster that started this thread is well known for
> adding far more noise than signal to any discussion, and for showing
> no interest in the greater good of any of the communities, but only in
> his own glorification.
> 
> You labor under the delusion that there is at least good intent here,
> and the
> poster ought to receive the benefit of the doubt.  Long prior
> experience shows that this hope is misplaced.
> 
> -- Don

Thank you, Don, for outlining the issue far more eloquently than I was
able to.  Also, to be clear, I don't think anyone's upset that people
find his posts interesting, but it doesn't make it so for everyone else
(or assign them any ailment if they don't see it that way) --
especially in regard to the other groups he cross posts to (of which
one should have specifically been the ruby group, but I digress.)
-- 
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting.  24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Don Geddis]

Richard Riley  wrote on Thu, 01 Jan 2009:
> Tim Greer  writes:
>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple, irrelevant
>> news groups.  There's no rhyme or reason to it.
>
> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.  How is a comparison
> article not relevant when he is trying to stimulate discussion about
> alternative languages for modern development?

Sometimes crossposting can be useful.  But you ought to at least be aware
of some of the possible drawbacks, e.g. expressed here:
http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/cross-posting.html

In particular, the usual hope by the poster is that the content is relevant
to the union of people in the different groups, but the actual experience is
that it is often relevant only to the intersection of such people.

And, moreover, that a long cross-posted thread on controversial topics often
winds up with people talking at cross-purposes past each other, because they
don't share enough common values to have a useful conversation.

In particular, the poster that started this thread is well known for adding
far more noise than signal to any discussion, and for showing no interest in
the greater good of any of the communities, but only in his own
glorification.

You labor under the delusion that there is at least good intent here, and the
poster ought to receive the benefit of the doubt.  Long prior experience shows
that this hope is misplaced.

-- Don
___
Don Geddis  http://don.geddis.org/   d...@geddis.org
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.  His own
good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
-- John Stuart Mill, _On Liberty_
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Ryan McCoskrie]

Xah Lee wrote:

> 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. 

There is one thing that Ruby is exceptionally good for and that is
replacing COBOL and Visual Basic as the programming languages
for non-programmers. It's dead boring as a language but somebody
who is an accountant or something could make some okayish tools
for personal use in it.


Next point. If your going to post this sort of thing _only_ post to
comp.programming and _never_ post what is on your website. Just
put it into your sig block.


Quote of the login:
Computers don't actually think.
You just think they think.
(We think.)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[r]

On Jan 2, 6:45 am, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:38:02 -0800, r wrote:
> > He was not cross posting.
>
> You don't actually know what cross-posting is, do you?
>
> You've just earned a plonking for the next month. Do try to have at least
> half a clue by February.
>
> --
> Steven

Steven i got you NOW!
Everybody go and look at this thread, there Mr. Makinzie butts in and
posts an off-topic question, and Steven answers it, contributing to
the off-topicalitly of the thread. And has yet to apologize for it, or
admit his screwup, but will he preach to everyone else about making
off topic post... Pot meet Kettle; Kettle Pot!

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/fc57c18c3cff5937?hl=en&q=recycle+bin#97254d877903bbd
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Please show some restraint (Was: Why not Ruby?)

[D'Arcy J.M. Cain]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:57:06 +0100
Richard Riley  wrote:
> You clearly have a personal issue with Xah Lee. Possibly it is better
> you killfile him or your spring will over wind :-;

What good does a killfile do if people insist on repeating his posts in
their entirety?

Please people, try to resist the urge to reply to every post that
raises your blood pressure a point or two but if you must reply, please
trim.  Anyone can always go back and review a previous message if they
need more context.  Heck, we can even review messages posted by people
in our killfile.

Personally, if I can't see your reply without scrolling down I just
tend to hit the delete key.  That means that thanks to you non-trimmers
I get to read Xah posts over and over but never get to see your witty,
entertaining and educational replies.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain  |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/|  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Andreas Waldenburger]

On 02 Jan 2009 12:45:36 GMT Steven D'Aprano
 wrote:

> You've just earned a plonking for the next month. Do try to have at
> least half a clue by February.

I will state again that there seems to have been a slight change of
tone in clp lately.

How about we Python guys work a bit harder on not calling each other
names and such?

Not that I have a particular problem with *what* Steven said here, but
it could have been phrased a tad more calmly, just for the sake of not
stirring up unnecessary feelings of defiance.

/W

-- 
My real email address is constructed by swapping the domain with the
recipient (local part).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:38:02 -0800, r wrote:

> He was not cross posting.

You don't actually know what cross-posting is, do you?

You've just earned a plonking for the next month. Do try to have at least 
half a clue by February.


-- 
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Steven D'Aprano a écrit :

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:35:54 -0800, r wrote:


(snip stupid troll)



You really are an idiot. 


Steven, this bozo is just another Xah Lee, so don't waste your time with 
him. We all know how to deal with trolls, don't we ?

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:19:38 -0800, Fuzzyman wrote:

> On Jan 2, 12:16 am, Steven D'Aprano  cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:32:53 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> > On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary
>> > implementation in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  One of these
>> > years I'll get around to writing one.
>>
>> You don't think Python's dict implementation is functional? That's
>> pretty strange, Python dicts are the basis of much of the language.
>> They certainly work, and work well, what makes you think they aren't
>> functional? What does Data.Map do that dicts don't?
>>
>>
> He almost certainly (I assume) means functional in the way that Haskell
> is a functional language.

*slaps head*

D'oh!


Er, I mean... 

Of course, I knew that, I was checking to see if anyone else did.


*cough*


-- 
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[r]

On Jan 1, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:35:54 -0800, r wrote:
> > the use of "end" in a language as
> > high level as Ruby is redundant, and idiotic. There are a few things
> > about Ruby i really like, but this "end" business is blasphemy.
>
> "Blasphemy"?
>
> You really are an idiot. Programming languages are not religions. Step
> away from the computer, and don't come back until you've grown up.
>
> And stop cross-posting, you rude little delinquent.
>
> --
> Steven

Steven,
Spare us your flamery, get on board, and be a part of the solution,
and not just a constant problem to those you don't agree with. Or at
least do like my friend Bruno, and send me up,up,and away to your bozo
filter! Your one of the few trolls left that i have to deal with
around here. And it's sad because sometimes you do offer good
information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Paul Rubin]

Marek Kubica  writes:
> > I guess if it is functional then every mutation must copy and return a
> > new data structure? 

Yes.

> > (Which will be much more efficient in Haskell than
> > in Python - Haskell can share most of the underlying data whereas Python
> > would have to create a new dict every time. At least it only stores
> > references.)

The structure sharing is essential, but you can do it in Python, just
not using Python dicts as far as I can tell.

> Who says that it must create a whole new one? I could imagine that with a 
> bit weakref code and some thought an immutable dictionary that shares 
> data would be possible in Python too.

I don't see a way to do that.  Suppose d and e are dicts that are supposed
to share structure except d['name']='bob' and e['name']='joe'.  How do
weakrefs help?

Functional dictionaries are usually implemented using red-black trees
or AVL trees or similar data structures, rather than hash tables.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Paul Rubin]

Steven D'Aprano  writes:
> You don't think Python's dict implementation is functional? 

I'm using the term "functional" in the sense of Chris Okasaki's book
"Purely Functional Data Structures".  Basically a functional dictionary
is an immutable dictionary that supports fast "update" operations
by letting you quickly make a new dictionary that shares structure
with the old one.  For example, if d is a functional dictionary, then

   e = d.update(("name", "joe"))

would be something like Python's

   e = d.copy()
   e["name"] = "joe"

except that it would not incur the overhead of copying d completely
and instead would usually take O(log n) operations where n is the
number of entries in d.  Among other things this makes it trivial
to implement rollback for dictionaries, multiple views of the same
data, etc.

Functional dictionaries are normally implemented using balanced tree
structures such as red-black trees as their association mechanism,
rather than hash tables.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Marek Kubica]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:13:19 -0800, Fuzzyman wrote:

> Care to save me the effort of looking it up and tell me what Data.Map
> does that Python's dict doesn't?
> 
> I guess if it is functional then every mutation must copy and return a
> new data structure? (Which will be much more efficient in Haskell than
> in Python - Haskell can share most of the underlying data whereas Python
> would have to create a new dict every time. At least it only stores
> references.)

Who says that it must create a whole new one? I could imagine that with a 
bit weakref code and some thought an immutable dictionary that shares 
data would be possible in Python too.

regards,
Marek
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:35:54 -0800, r wrote:

> the use of "end" in a language as
> high level as Ruby is redundant, and idiotic. There are a few things
> about Ruby i really like, but this "end" business is blasphemy.

"Blasphemy"?

You really are an idiot. Programming languages are not religions. Step 
away from the computer, and don't come back until you've grown up.

And stop cross-posting, you rude little delinquent.



-- 
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[r]

On Jan 1, 6:16 pm, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:32:53 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary implementation
> > in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  One of these years I'll get around
> > to writing one.
>
> You don't think Python's dict implementation is functional? That's pretty
> strange, Python dicts are the basis of much of the language. They
> certainly work, and work well, what makes you think they aren't
> functional? What does Data.Map do that dicts don't?
>
> Oh, and Paul, you've been around long enough that you should know better
> than to be cross-posting like you did.
>
> --
> Steven

Steven,
He was not cross posting. His reference to python dicts is a result of
the nested scope of my references to Xah. Making them perfectly and
completely valid in this thread, and the scope therein! I do not
believe a linear conversation would do anybody any good here and even
valid.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[r]

On Jan 1, 5:34 pm, Kenneth Tilton  wrote:
> Richard Riley wrote:
> > Jason Rumney  writes:
>
> >> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r  wrote:
>
> >>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
> >> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
> >> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
> >> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
> >> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
> >> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
> >> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
> >> more carefully sometimes.
>
> > I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
> > points.
>
> Precisely, and thus they are the trolls: few of them trim followups, and
> all of them try to sound funny or clever in their attacks. Xah has
> something to say about technology, like what he says or not. His
> attackers just see an open mike and want to hear the sound of their own
> voice, which I certainly understand.
>
> And before anyone goes for that old argument from self-reference, the
> madding crowd succeeded once in their harrassment of The Xah so
> remaining silent is no option.
>
> p,k

Good Point,
Starting a new thread is not off topic no matter what subject. I have
never witnessed a time where Xah jumped in the middle of a thread and
started a ruckus(i could be wrong), But i do see many interrupting
Xah's threads or any thread for that matter that they feel is
irrelevant to them. The topic of a thread is it's title. Here, the
title is "Why Not Ruby". I am the only person yet to offer argument
for or against Ruby here.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Fuzzyman]

On Jan 2, 12:16 am, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:32:53 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary implementation
> > in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  One of these years I'll get around
> > to writing one.
>
> You don't think Python's dict implementation is functional? That's pretty
> strange, Python dicts are the basis of much of the language. They
> certainly work, and work well, what makes you think they aren't
> functional? What does Data.Map do that dicts don't?
>

He almost certainly (I assume) means functional in the way that
Haskell is a functional language.

Michael Foord
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Tim Greer]

Richard Riley wrote:

> Tim Greer  writes:
> 
>> Richard Riley wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>> Tim Greer  writes:
>>> 
 Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:

> This is not a Ruby group.
> I recommend you to go waste your time there.

 That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
 irrelevant news groups.  There's no rhyme or reason to it.  It's
 best to just filter the guy's posts.
>>> 
>>> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.
>>> 
>>> How is a comparison article not relevant when he is trying to
>>> stimulate discussion about alternative languages for modern
>>> development? Most news readers feature a kill thread command if you
>>> are not interested in the content. Certainly less extreme or
>>> ignorant than killing all posts from someone who clearly has
>>> interesting things to say about development practises and tools.
>>
>> Don't get so wound up because people in groups he cross posts this
>> junk
> 
> 
> Wound up?

Yes, I'd say that accusing people of bring ignorant and attacking them
for not sharing your view on the irrelevant cross posting and trolling
of the Xah poster, is indeed an indication that you appear to be wound
up.  Perhaps you've not seen the posts and threads he's made that I've
seen?  Perhaps I've not seen the one's you have?  Either way, the one's
I have, have all been either self serving garbage about his own
personal feelings that he attempts to covey as fact with his
overbearing arrogance, or it's simply to attack others for not sharing
his view.  I find that ironic.  He attacks others, acting belligerent,
and you attack those that simply say he's better ignored.

> I am not wound up in any shape or form.

Then convey that in your attitude when replying to others you don't know
anything about, and try and be civil and not accuse people you don't
know.

> I am suggesting the  
> opposite.

Suggesting it by doing exactly what you're saying people should not do?

> It seems you are the one a little wound up.

Nope, I responded to your attempts to provoke an issue, when you accused
myself and others of being "ignorant" for not sharing your view
regarding the Xah poster.

> So wound up in  
> fact you are taking it on yourself to tell people who they should or
> should not read.

A suggestion is not an instruction or demand.  You listed reasons why
you believed those that didn't agree with you were wrong and ignorant,
and I listed reasons in response to your claim to dispute it.


>> to actually don't want to see it.  This poster is hardly interesting
>> or
>> offering anything intelligent.  This poster has a history of posting
>> things that he is personally interested in arguing about, and posting
>> it in groups that are not about the languages he chooses to complain
>> about.  There is no rhyme or reason to post in the Perl news group,
>> for
> 
> You dont seem to think that a comparison article is relevant in the
> groups dedicated to the languages he compares too?

No.  Not when it's just his own feelings about the languages.  A lot of
people have their personal feelings about various languages, imagine
all of the pollution we'd see if everyone was as arrogant as this guy,
all posting their views as if they are the authority on the matter? 
Again, going by that deduction, what do you suppose explains his
failure to consider posting this in the ruby group itself, since that
is the primary (and actually, only) relevant group (dismissing his
personal views)?

> OK. I do.

If you do, that's fine.  However, many people in the Perl group, which
I'm seeing this thread, have voiced their issues with this poster's
relentless postings of this nature.  I did as well, in this new thread.

> You are,  
> of course, welcome to your opinion and I certainly would not tell you
> who to read or not read.

I can appreciate that, and I didn't tell you to do anything though, now
did I?

> I would suggest that not everyone woul agree 
> with you and that telling people who to killfile is not at all
> constructive.

Of course I don't expect everyone to agree with me.  The poster that
replied displayed annoyance at seeing the off topic, self serving and
trollish post that this Xah poster is known for (at least in this
group), and in response to *that*, I had suggested they don't take him
seriously, and this is "what he does" (in my experience).  There's no
reason to read more into it and start claiming people are ignorant for
not agreeing with you.  And, I think it's perfectly constructive to
advise someone that this isn't abnormal, and for future reference, to
consider such an option if they are too annoyed by it.

>> example, if you're complaining about Ruby.  This is not even close to
>> the first time this has happened, much like his relentless posts
>> about Mathematica (again, cross posted to several groups, including
>> Perl). This user has a specific bias and is trolling to get a rise
>> out of people by picking random languages and trying to cut them
>> d

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:32:53 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:

> On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary implementation
> in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  One of these years I'll get around
> to writing one.

You don't think Python's dict implementation is functional? That's pretty 
strange, Python dicts are the basis of much of the language. They 
certainly work, and work well, what makes you think they aren't 
functional? What does Data.Map do that dicts don't?

Oh, and Paul, you've been around long enough that you should know better 
than to be cross-posting like you did.



-- 
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[J�rgen Exner]

Kenneth Tilton  wrote:
>Xah has 
>something to say about technology, like what he says or not. 

Unfortunately it's unrelated to the topics the NGs he is spamming.

*PLONK*

jue
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[J�rgen Exner]

Richard Riley  wrote:
>discussion about alternative languages for modern development? Most news
>readers feature a kill thread command if you are not interested in the
>content. Certainly less extreme or ignorant than killing all posts from
>someone

Thank you for reminding me

*PLONK*

jue
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Richard Riley]

Kenneth Tilton  writes:

> Richard Riley wrote:
>> Jason Rumney  writes:
>>
>>> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r  wrote:
>>>
 The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>>> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
>>> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
>>> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
>>> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
>>> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
>>> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
>>> more carefully sometimes.
>>
>> I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
>> points. 
>
> Precisely, and thus they are the trolls: few of them trim followups,
> and all of them try to sound funny or clever in their attacks. Xah has
> something to say about technology, like what he says or not. His
> attackers just see an open mike and want to hear the sound of their
> own voice, which I certainly understand.
>
> And before anyone goes for that old argument from self-reference, the
> madding crowd succeeded once in their harrassment of The Xah so
> remaining silent is no option.
>
> p,k

It's good to see I am not alone in my views on some of the more
aggressive posters who seem to take delight in attacking Xah Lee. I was
wondering if I had backed myself into a corner with no chance of escape
for a moment. I found the comments on his elisp tutorial and reference
particularly offensive and destructive considering I know it to be of at
least some use as I referred to it quite a bit when trying some basic
customisations.

-- 
 important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the 
satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation 
of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday.  ~Dennis Gabor, 
Innovations:  Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Richard Riley]

Tim Greer  writes:

> Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> 
>> Tim Greer  writes:
>> 
>>> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>>>
 This is not a Ruby group.
 I recommend you to go waste your time there.
>>>
>>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
>>> irrelevant news groups.  There's no rhyme or reason to it.  It's best
>>> to just filter the guy's posts.
>> 
>> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.
>> 
>> How is a comparison article not relevant when he is trying to
>> stimulate discussion about alternative languages for modern
>> development? Most news readers feature a kill thread command if you
>> are not interested in the content. Certainly less extreme or ignorant
>> than killing all posts from someone who clearly has interesting things
>> to say about development practises and tools.
>
> Don't get so wound up because people in groups he cross posts this
> junk


Wound up? I am not wound up in any shape or form. I am suggesting the
opposite. It seems you are the one a little wound up. So wound up in
fact you are taking it on yourself to tell people who they should or
should not read.

> to actually don't want to see it.  This poster is hardly interesting or
> offering anything intelligent.  This poster has a history of posting
> things that he is personally interested in arguing about, and posting
> it in groups that are not about the languages he chooses to complain
> about.  There is no rhyme or reason to post in the Perl news group,
> for

You dont seem to think that a comparison article is relevant in the
groups dedicated to the languages he compares too? OK. I do. You are, of
course, welcome to your opinion and I certainly would not tell you who
to read or not read. I would suggest that not everyone woul agree with
you and that telling people who to killfile is not at all constructive.

> example, if you're complaining about Ruby.  This is not even close to
> the first time this has happened, much like his relentless posts about
> Mathematica (again, cross posted to several groups, including Perl). 
> This user has a specific bias and is trolling to get a rise out of
> people by picking random languages and trying to cut them down,
> claiming *his* opinions (based on lack of insights, ironically) are
> superior.  He does this often, and always cross posts to several groups
> that are completely irrelevant to his argument.

You clearly have a personal issue with Xah Lee. Possibly it is better
you killfile him or your spring will over wind :-;

regards,

r.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Richard Riley]

Raymond Wiker  writes:

> Richard Riley  writes:
>
>> Tamas K Papp  writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote:
>>>
 posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far
 and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving
 to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive
>>>
>>> Programmers don't "move" to Elisp.  Emacs Lisp is used out of necessity 
>>> when you want to program Emacs.  No one in his/her right mind would use 
>>> it in any other context, as far better alternatives exist (eg CL for 
>>> those who like Lisp).
>>>
>>> Tamas
>>
>> "move to Elisp" was clearly meant as "moving towards it in order to use
>> it". In this case to modify emacs. And to suggest that jobs of work are
>> not done in Emacs is ridiculous. I am at a loss to really understand
>> what you mean here in the context.
>
>   OK, how about this: Xah's elisp code stinks to high
> heaven. His code should not be studied by anybody who actually wants
> to actually learn elisp (or anything else).

I found his tutorial easy to use and very convenient for finding out how
to do things quickly and easily. I grant you that possibly thats not the
way to be a true Elisp god, but for getting things done in a timely and
efficient manner I thought it was good.

Clearly Xah Lee stirs up some strong emotions here. I can only go on
what I have read from him and I find him interesting and always willing
to back up his own research and views.

-- 
 important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the 
satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation 
of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday.  ~Dennis Gabor, 
Innovations:  Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Kenneth Tilton]

Richard Riley wrote:

Jason Rumney  writes:


On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r  wrote:


The man lives in a world driven by common sense

"Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
more carefully sometimes.


I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
points. 


Precisely, and thus they are the trolls: few of them trim followups, and 
all of them try to sound funny or clever in their attacks. Xah has 
something to say about technology, like what he says or not. His 
attackers just see an open mike and want to hear the sound of their own 
voice, which I certainly understand.


And before anyone goes for that old argument from self-reference, the 
madding crowd succeeded once in their harrassment of The Xah so 
remaining silent is no option.


p,k
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Tim Greer]

Richard Riley wrote:

> Jason Rumney  writes:
> 
>> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r  wrote:
>>
>>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>>
>> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
>> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
>> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
>> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
>> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
>> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
>> more carefully sometimes.
> 
> I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
> points. And they argue the man because he refuses to be brow beaten by
> those who do not like to be criticised or are too think skinned. I
> rarely find his posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp
> tutorial is far and away better than anything else out there for the
> programmer moving to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons
> and supportive evidence and rarely with "because I'm experienced and
> thats the way it is" - something not every one takes the time to do.
> He is clearly intelligent, thoughtful and experienced if a little
> lacking in finesse at times. The world needs more Xah lees.
> 

You say he's intelligent and interesting, others see it as the opposite. 
If you want to read his rants, by all means.  However, there have been
many, many posts there this poster was proven wrong. That is when the
poster become more belligerent, off topic, and vulgar.  That is not the
actions of an intelligent person that's staying on topic or providing
anything interesting.  The only thing I find interesting, is two
anonymous posters from gmail.com rushing to his defense, especially in
light of the fact that few people share your version of this person's
talents.  I'm not trying to be mean, but the guy is what people call a
usenet troll.  By all means, be his fan, but don't encourage his cross
posting trolling as a means to provoke interesting, intelligent
debating (because he's not and it's absolutely not his intention). 
Believe what you want, though, and I'll believe what I know.
-- 
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting.  24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Tim Greer]

Richard Riley wrote:

> 
> Tim Greer  writes:
> 
>> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>>
>>> This is not a Ruby group.
>>> I recommend you to go waste your time there.
>>
>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
>> irrelevant news groups.  There's no rhyme or reason to it.  It's best
>> to just filter the guy's posts.
> 
> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.
> 
> How is a comparison article not relevant when he is trying to
> stimulate discussion about alternative languages for modern
> development? Most news readers feature a kill thread command if you
> are not interested in the content. Certainly less extreme or ignorant
> than killing all posts from someone who clearly has interesting things
> to say about development practises and tools.

Don't get so wound up because people in groups he cross posts this junk
to actually don't want to see it.  This poster is hardly interesting or
offering anything intelligent.  This poster has a history of posting
things that he is personally interested in arguing about, and posting
it in groups that are not about the languages he chooses to complain
about.  There is no rhyme or reason to post in the Perl news group, for
example, if you're complaining about Ruby.  This is not even close to
the first time this has happened, much like his relentless posts about
Mathematica (again, cross posted to several groups, including Perl). 
This user has a specific bias and is trolling to get a rise out of
people by picking random languages and trying to cut them down,
claiming *his* opinions (based on lack of insights, ironically) are
superior.  He does this often, and always cross posts to several groups
that are completely irrelevant to his argument.

The fact you actually buy into this nonsense, actually doesn't make
anyone else wrong or ignorant for not agreeing with him, or falling for
it.  In fact, it means exactly the opposite.  If he had something
actually interesting and/or relevant, then his rants would be more
tolerated by users of these groups.  However, since he offers none of
those aspects, this is why you see people voice their grievances.  Look
at this in its basic element, if you don't believe what people say --
this user didn't post the topic in the most revelant group (being the
ruby group), and each time he goes off on another misguided tangent,
several people prove him wrong, and it doesn't phase him or change
anything -- he just continues to cross post.  Like I said, if you think
he's interesting, fine.  However, many people don't.  Perhaps as you
learn more about programming, development and specific tools and
practices, you'll come to realize this fact as well.  In the meantime,
the irony is probably lost when you actually believe he is offering
something of substance, interest or that people whom know better are
somehow ignorant.
-- 
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting.  24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Benjamin Kaplan]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Richard Riley  wrote:

> Jason Rumney  writes:
>
> > On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r  wrote:
> >
> >> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
> >
> > "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
> > populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
> > ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
> > start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
> > debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
> > not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
> > more carefully sometimes.
>
> I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
> points. And they argue the man because he refuses to be brow beaten by
> those who do not like to be criticised or are too think skinned. I
> rarely find his posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp
> tutorial is far and away better than anything else out there for the
> programmer moving to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and
> supportive evidence and rarely with "because I'm experienced and thats
> the way it is" - something not every one takes the time to do. He is
> clearly intelligent, thoughtful and experienced if a little lacking in
> finesse at times. The world needs more Xah lees.


If this were an Elisp/Mathematica/Ruby group, those posts would be fine. It
isn't just the content of the posts, it's their subject that gets on
everyone's nerves. We don't want to hear about Elisp tutorials or why
Mathematica is superior to Python. We want to hear about Python. This isn't
people being closed-minded, it's about people trying to keep comp.lang.*
python* focused on python. If we want to hear about Elisp, we'd ask about it
on an emacs or a lisp group. If we want to hear about Mathematica, we'd ask
Wolfram for help. If Xah Lee came to the group with posts that constituted
"general discussions and questions about Python" people on the list wouldn't
get so annoyed.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Raymond Wiker]

Richard Riley  writes:

> Tamas K Papp  writes:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote:
>>
>>> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far
>>> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving
>>> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive
>>
>> Programmers don't "move" to Elisp.  Emacs Lisp is used out of necessity 
>> when you want to program Emacs.  No one in his/her right mind would use 
>> it in any other context, as far better alternatives exist (eg CL for 
>> those who like Lisp).
>>
>> Tamas
>
> "move to Elisp" was clearly meant as "moving towards it in order to use
> it". In this case to modify emacs. And to suggest that jobs of work are
> not done in Emacs is ridiculous. I am at a loss to really understand
> what you mean here in the context.

OK, how about this: Xah's elisp code stinks to high
heaven. His code should not be studied by anybody who actually wants
to actually learn elisp (or anything else).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Richard Riley]

Tamas K Papp  writes:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far
>> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving
>> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive
>
> Programmers don't "move" to Elisp.  Emacs Lisp is used out of necessity 
> when you want to program Emacs.  No one in his/her right mind would use 
> it in any other context, as far better alternatives exist (eg CL for 
> those who like Lisp).
>
> Tamas

"move to Elisp" was clearly meant as "moving towards it in order to use
it". In this case to modify emacs. And to suggest that jobs of work are
not done in Emacs is ridiculous. I am at a loss to really understand
what you mean here in the context.

-- 
 important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the 
satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation 
of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday.  ~Dennis Gabor, 
Innovations:  Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Tamas K Papp]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote:

> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far
> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving
> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive

Programmers don't "move" to Elisp.  Emacs Lisp is used out of necessity 
when you want to program Emacs.  No one in his/her right mind would use 
it in any other context, as far better alternatives exist (eg CL for 
those who like Lisp).

Tamas
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Richard Riley]

Tim Greer  writes:

> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>
>> This is not a Ruby group.
>> I recommend you to go waste your time there.
>
> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
> irrelevant news groups.  There's no rhyme or reason to it.  It's best
> to just filter the guy's posts.

No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.

How is a comparison article not relevant when he is trying to stimulate
discussion about alternative languages for modern development? Most news
readers feature a kill thread command if you are not interested in the
content. Certainly less extreme or ignorant than killing all posts from
someone who clearly has interesting things to say about development
practises and tools.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Richard Riley]

r  writes:

> On Jan 1, 2:05 am, Jason Rumney  wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r  wrote:
>>
>> > The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>>
>> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
>> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
>> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
>> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
>> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
>> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
>> more carefully sometimes.
>
> I think if you will consider society as a whole, you will see that
> most people don't display much sense at all. "Joe Blow" only cares
> about paris hilton, britney spears, or janet jackson wardrobe
> malfunctions. The only thing they contribute to society is human
> excrement. So --"Common sense is the least most common thing"-- really
> means there exists no sense as a commonality.
>
> This can apply to higher educated people too, even Guido. Go and read
> Xahs take on the Python official tutorial, you will find your self
> agreeing with everything that he says. Guido filled it with so much
> fluff and off topic BS, causing the learning process to shut down. The
> only kind of person that might find it enjoying would be a fellow
> Computer Science Graduate. I did not know it at the time but this
> contributed to my late understanding of classes and regexes. And being
> such a fanboy of Python and carrying such a high respect for Guido
> that is hard for me to say, BUT it is the TRUTH nonetheless. Guido has
> no business writing tutorials anymore, WHY you ask. Because he is too
> smart, and too much on the inside. He cannot relate to the n00b
> pythoneer, he has crossed the Rubicon. Less fluff more simple examples
> are the key to quick learning. My love for python has blinded me to
> some of the atrocities that exist here. I have many more examples from
> the Official-TUT than Xah covered.
>
> Don't take my word, judge for yourself...
> http://xahlee.org/perl-python/xlali_skami_cukta.html
>
> here is Xah's take on OOP, very good reading for beginners and
> Gurus...
> http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html
>
> If all Xah did was come here and say "Hey, python sucks donkey
> dicks!", i would pay him no mind. But he brings much intelligence, and
> vigor to an otherwise boring, and sometimes mindless newsgroup. What i
> like about him is his out-side-the-box thinking style. He does not
> give in to this BS "Proper Society" wants to push onto us. He is a
> real rebel, but WITH a cause! And the cause is to bring common sense
> back to a world of fluff an BS jargonisms. I don't always agree with
> his thoughts, but most the time he's spot on. Open your min c.l.py.
> Lest it close forever.

Great post and I agree with you 100%.

-- 
 important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the 
satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation 
of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday.  ~Dennis Gabor, 
Innovations:  Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Richard Riley]

Jason Rumney  writes:

> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r  wrote:
>
>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>
> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
> more carefully sometimes.

I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
points. And they argue the man because he refuses to be brow beaten by
those who do not like to be criticised or are too think skinned. I
rarely find his posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp
tutorial is far and away better than anything else out there for the
programmer moving to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and
supportive evidence and rarely with "because I'm experienced and thats
the way it is" - something not every one takes the time to do. He is
clearly intelligent, thoughtful and experienced if a little lacking in
finesse at times. The world needs more Xah lees.

-- 
 important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the 
satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation 
of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday.  ~Dennis Gabor, 
Innovations:  Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Fuzzyman]

On Jan 1, 8:32 pm, Paul Rubin  wrote:
[snip...]
> > Of course pythons list, dict, strings in my opinion just can't be beat,
>
> On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary
> implementation in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  One of these years
> I'll get around to writing one.

Care to save me the effort of looking it up and tell me what Data.Map
does that Python's dict doesn't?

I guess if it is functional then every mutation must copy and return a
new data structure? (Which will be much more efficient in Haskell than
in Python - Haskell can share most of the underlying data whereas
Python would have to create a new dict every time. At least it only
stores references.)

Michael Foord
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Paul Rubin]

r  writes:
> I am beginning to think
> the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and
> Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear
> syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus.

You might like Tim Sweeney's POPL talk:

  http://www.st.cs.uni-saarland.de/edu/seminare/2005/advanced-fp/docs/sweeny.pdf

> Of course pythons list, dict, strings in my opinion just can't be beat, 

On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary
implementation in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  One of these years
I'll get around to writing one.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Tomasz Rola]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, s...@netherlands.com wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton  
> wrote:
> 
> >Xah Lee wrote:
> >> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
> >> for those interested.
> >> 
> 
> Be carefull what you say. If they pay me I would rip your and Xah's
> guts out in a second.
> 
> sln

Too much champagne? A guy (XL) is sometimes off topic and I don't always 
agree with his postings - if I find the subject somewhat worthy, I usually 
skim through it, this is how I have found myself knee deep in this 
strange exchange between XL's supporters and opponents. And his website is 
big like a magazine and full of strange, sometimes not interesting or hard 
to assess stuff (it needs time to read and time is hard to find nowadays). 
But sometimes, what he writes is informative, too. A bit redundant but 
still, I would give him a small "plus", rather than "zero" or "minus".

But I do not remember him being blunt or agressive.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[r]

Xah Lee,
> 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.

You could not be more right Xah, the use of "end" in a language as
high level as Ruby is redundant, and idiotic. There are a few things
about Ruby i really like, but this "end" business is blasphemy. If
ruby did not use indentation, i would see the need for "end", or
braces, or whatever, but why use both indentation AND the "end" word?
Such stupidity. I guess Mats thought Ruby would look too much like
Python, ARE YOU KIDDING MATS?, you already took so much from Python
anyway, dropping the end statement won't change that. And heck, you
will gain many new users with out it's archaic redundancy

I must say at first i did not like the each method but it has grow on
me because of its space saving attributes. There are also some nice
shortcuts in Ruby that do not exist in Python. I am beginning to think
the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and
Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear
syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus. I would probably lean more
towards python scoping and classes than ruby, but python classes need
a little less redundancy also. Of course pythons list, dict, strings
in my opinion just can't be beat, and regex forget-a-about-it! Python
rules here. Even though Ruby has built in support, python's is much
more elegant. I really like pythons handling of modules and
module.class.method syntax.

Both languages have much to offer, i believe though Python has a
better base, it just needs some cleaning up, and shortcut syntax so
moderate/Gurus don't develop carpal tunnel too early :)




--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[r]

On Jan 1, 2:05 am, Jason Rumney  wrote:
> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r  wrote:
>
> > The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>
> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
> more carefully sometimes.

I think if you will consider society as a whole, you will see that
most people don't display much sense at all. "Joe Blow" only cares
about paris hilton, britney spears, or janet jackson wardrobe
malfunctions. The only thing they contribute to society is human
excrement. So --"Common sense is the least most common thing"-- really
means there exists no sense as a commonality.

This can apply to higher educated people too, even Guido. Go and read
Xahs take on the Python official tutorial, you will find your self
agreeing with everything that he says. Guido filled it with so much
fluff and off topic BS, causing the learning process to shut down. The
only kind of person that might find it enjoying would be a fellow
Computer Science Graduate. I did not know it at the time but this
contributed to my late understanding of classes and regexes. And being
such a fanboy of Python and carrying such a high respect for Guido
that is hard for me to say, BUT it is the TRUTH nonetheless. Guido has
no business writing tutorials anymore, WHY you ask. Because he is too
smart, and too much on the inside. He cannot relate to the n00b
pythoneer, he has crossed the Rubicon. Less fluff more simple examples
are the key to quick learning. My love for python has blinded me to
some of the atrocities that exist here. I have many more examples from
the Official-TUT than Xah covered.

Don't take my word, judge for yourself...
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/xlali_skami_cukta.html

here is Xah's take on OOP, very good reading for beginners and
Gurus...
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html

If all Xah did was come here and say "Hey, python sucks donkey
dicks!", i would pay him no mind. But he brings much intelligence, and
vigor to an otherwise boring, and sometimes mindless newsgroup. What i
like about him is his out-side-the-box thinking style. He does not
give in to this BS "Proper Society" wants to push onto us. He is a
real rebel, but WITH a cause! And the cause is to bring common sense
back to a world of fluff an BS jargonisms. I don't always agree with
his thoughts, but most the time he's spot on. Open your min c.l.py.
Lest it close forever.

eliminate the life decline...
its time to change...
can't stay the same...
Revolution is my name!
 -Phil Anselmo-
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Stanisław Halik]

In comp.lang.lisp r  wrote:

> Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his
> insights of languages and tech is fascinating. The man lives in a
> world driven by common sense, and you know what they say --"Common
> sense is the least most common thing"-- just look around at the
> responses here.
Might hold true for some rants, but most of it's tl;dr drivel. For
instance, his critique of Lisp's homoiconicity is completely off-target.

> I come from a different world than IT, and I thought initially the IT
> world would be filled with intelligent, free thinking, and open minded
> people... BOY was i wrong! I would not turn my back on these people
> for a second, lest you catch a knife in it!
So-called "IT" is driven by capitalistic impulses. Dijkstra and his
followers get dismissed as ivory tower intellectuals.

FUT warning.

-- 
You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything
away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything he’s no longer
in your power — he’s free again. -- Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Kenneth Tilton]

s...@netherlands.com wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton  wrote:


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


Be carefull what you say. If they pay me I would rip your and Xah's
guts out in a second.


Sorry, my new President has banned drama so I will only be responding 
pleasantly to civil comments. (This has been a non-responding response.)


Peace,k
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Randal L. Schwartz]

> "r" == r   writes:

r> Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
r> have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
r> ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
r> and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are
r> from my supposed "brothers" here at c.l.py. Just letting you know
r> there are open minded people out here. I would hate to live in a world
r> that did not contain an Xah lee.

Since Usenet has neither "stars" nor "ratings", you are hallucinating.

Care to elaborate?

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
 http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Jason Rumney]

On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r  wrote:

> The man lives in a world driven by common sense

"Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
more carefully sometimes.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[sln]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton  wrote:

>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

Be carefull what you say. If they pay me I would rip your and Xah's
guts out in a second.

sln

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[member thudfoo]

2008/12/31 Giampaolo Rodola' :
> On 31 Dic, 18:55, Xah Lee  wrote:
>> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
[...]

> --- Giampaolo
> http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib
>

Hey, Giampaolo:

I had gone to the trouble to filter out the posts from xah lee, but
you have quoted his entire message. If you would like to scold xah
lee, you can do so directly without reposting to this fine newsgroup.

Thank You Very Much.

> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Kenneth Tilton]

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

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Roger a écrit :

On Dec 31, 12:55 pm, Xah Lee  wrote:

(snip)


Who are you?


His name is Xah Lee, and he's a well(hem)known troll. Just ignore him.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Tim Greer]

Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:

> This is not a Ruby group.
> I recommend you to go waste your time there.

That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
irrelevant news groups.  There's no rhyme or reason to it.  It's best
to just filter the guy's posts.
-- 
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting.  24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Giampaolo Rodola']

On 31 Dic, 18:55, 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.

This is not a Ruby group.
I recommend you to go waste your time there.


--- Giampaolo
http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

[Roger]

On Dec 31, 12:55 pm, Xah Lee  wrote:
> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
> for those interested.
>

Who are you?

In case no one tells you, you are a cocky, egotistical windbag with
opinions that border constructive but never gets there.  Why would
anyone care what you think?  Again, who are you?  Xah Lee?  And?  I
didn't subscribe to read reviews on Ruby.  And I'm pretty sure anyone
that bothers to subscribe to a group about programming has the
wherewithal to research a language themselves and come to their own
determiniation.

Also, this is a Python group and not Ruby.  I knew I should have
avoided this post and read the one about Nike Shoes from China.  At
least those bits of trolling spam don't try to mask themselves as
something worthwhile.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Why not Ruby?

[Xah Lee]

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.

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list