"Phil Tomson" <ptkwt / aracnet.com> answered: >Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux / yahoo.com> wrote: >>Hi. I am researching a language to switch to after Microsoft EOL'd >>classic >>Visual Basic. Visual Basic.NET is nothing like the old VB. Having been >>burned by relying on a commercial vendor, I am on a quest to find a VB >>like >>language that is free from corporate whims. > > Well, I wouldn't call Ruby (the Ruby we all speak around these here c.l.r > parts) VB-like (some might call them fight'n words). But it is free > from corporate whims. I have been noticing recently, writing both VB and Ruby, that they do often look alike (ever so clean and beautiful), but, I think, for different reasons. VB looks clean because the syntax is very simple and inflexible, and doesn't allow you to do all that much. 95% of all VB programs are built-in language constructs and functions. Ruby has "everything is an object" and that's a very powerful abstraction. The clean syntax is clever window-dressing on this very powerful and consistent system. While VB makes it easy to do a lot of the things you need to do all the time, Ruby makes doing more complicated things almost as easy. Dynamic typing and being able to change classes or objects' behaviour as you need to is cool. Blocks make it easy to pass code around, which is useful surprisingly often (coming from a Basic/Java background). OO + duck typing + blocks = you won't like VB as much afterwards. >>I went on a computer language >>site that documented the history of computer languages and their lineage. >> >>It was quite a shock to learn that Ruby may possibly be the brother of VB, > > There was apparently a language which was the precursor to VB which > was called Ruby. That Ruby became VB, however that other Ruby has > nothing to do with the Ruby we're dealing with here on this > newsgroup/mailing list. Actually, about a year ago one of the creators > of that other Ruby (Mike Geary) was hanging out here on c.l.r (I think > he even made the 100,000th post). If he is > still lurking, perhaps he can offer more info on that other Ruby. > >>and that Ruby is the son of Algol 60. Just a cursery glance over Ruby >>confirmed that my beloved "begin" and "end" are there. Sharing the same >>genes as a Algol is quite a statement of pedigree. > > Well, lots of languages came out of the Algol branch of the > computer language family tree. IMHO, Ruby is like Perl, but the object-orientation aspect of it is not tacked on with sticky-tape, it's right at the foundation where it should be. And it looks better. >>No wonder 60 percent of >>all programers speak VB to their computers. And now, my fellow Algol 60 >>decendants, I am now close to making Ruby my langauge of choice. My >>langauge, VB, is dying a cruel cancer of corporate apathy, but now I have >>found its brother so I am rejoicing. >> >>So my question is, what do I need to know to get started from a VB >>background? > > Having never coded in VB, I'm not sure I'm qualified to point you in the > right direction, however, I would start by getting a copy of Dave Thomas' > "Programming Ruby" 2nd edition. I suspect you'll find that Ruby is very > different from VB, but if you stick with it I suspect you'll be > pleasantly surprised and you'll probably learn a lot. I have coded in VB, but I haven't heard of anything specifically for VB-ers. But the Pickaxe II [1] is great if it is (as it's reputed to be) as good as Pickaxe I [2]which I have used, updated to Ruby 1.8. Also check out Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby [3] and/or Matz' Ruby User's Guide [4]. Cheers, Dave [1] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0974514055 [2] http://www.whytheluckystiff.net/ruby/pickaxe/ [3] http://www.poignantguide.net/ruby/ [4] http://www.ruby-doc.org/docs/UsersGuide/rg/