Le 26/5/2005, "James Britt" <james_b / neurogami.com> a ?crit:

>ES wrote:
>> This has perhaps been aired here already, if so, apologies.
>>
>> Someone did not like Ruby; I find it refreshing to read
>> these takes as well since the actually bring up some
>> (fairly) valid points, this one moreso than usual.
>>
>> http://www.ericw.org/rants/showrant.psp?rant=ruby
>
>First, an OT question: Is there a Firefox extension that lets me
>*quickly* disable/enable page colors?  I know I can do this via the Web
>dev tool bar stuff, but it's too many clicks, and sites with white text
>on a dark background (hip as that may be) are so painful to look at I
>get retina burn before I can finish all that clicking.
>
>About the log entry.  I have a rule of thumb.  If someone is using the
>words "shit"  or "fuck" three or four times on page, they quickly lose
>all credibility.   (Certain words should be treated like global
>variables: saved for special cases and for specific effect.)

Ah, yes. I forgot to append a disclaimer about the language.

>I like reading critiques (or criticism, even) of Ruby, but most of what
>was mentioned there were straw man arguments.  Certainly POLS is a known
>subjective aspect and an easy target.  I expect everyone reading
>ruby-talk could  assemble a list of cases where Ruby violates their own
>sense of POLS.

Sometimes it is good to know what the other people think is surprising;
not because it violates some imaginary principle but because it might
actually be a good idea to re-evaluate a given aspect to make it more
obvious.

>James Britt

E

--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }