--20cf303bf89a901e0b04adcd3e08
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Joey Zhou <yimutang / gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 1. It makes people happy, writing less code, and no harm to readability.
>


Personally, I would like to hear more on how having another operator for new
Rubyists to learn does not harm readability? One of the oft-cited advantages
of Ruby vs Perl is that Perl so often devolves into characters
indistinguishable from line-noise. Admittedly, it does seem that certain
languages are more than happy to chase down this rabbit hole (Haskell,
Scala, C++, etc.), but I think Ruby is not competing for mind-share with
these sorts of languages. Rather, I think Ruby could stand to learn a lot
from the simplicity of a language like Lua.

Furthermore, I do not think that the worst part of the
obj.method(:meth_name) form is its verbosity or really any part of its
syntax. Instead, what troubles me is all of the various hidden differences
between a method object, a proc object, and a proc(lambda) object, and the
relative uselessness of detached methods (e.g. they can only be rebound to
objects of the same class; not even subclasses are valid). I would rather
see these addressed before worrying about adding new syntax.

--20cf303bf89a901e0b04adcd3e08
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Joey Zhou <span dir="ltr">&lt;yimutang / gmail.com&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>1. It makes people happy, writing less code, and no harm to readability.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Personally, I would like to hear more on how having another operator for new Rubyists to learn does not harm readability? One of the oft-cited advantages of Ruby vs Perl is that Perl so often devolves into characters indistinguishable from line-noise. Admittedly, it does seem that certain languages are more than happy to chase down this rabbit hole (Haskell, Scala, C++, etc.), but I think Ruby is not competing for mind-share with these sorts of languages. Rather, I think Ruby couldtand to learn a lot from the simplicity of a language like Lua.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Furthermore, I do not think that the worst part of the obj.method(:meth_name) form is its verbosity or really any part of its syntax. Instead, what troubles me is all of the various hidden differences between a method object, a proc object, and a proc(lambda) object, and the relative uselessness of detached methods (e.g. they can only be rebound to objects of the same class; not even subclasses are valid). I would rather see these addressed before worrying about adding new syntax.</div>
</div>

--20cf303bf89a901e0b04adcd3e08--