Stefan Lang wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Volkmann ha scritto:
>>>

>>
>>And what is the practical implication of this?
> 
> 
> For the newbie: one language concept fewer to learn.
> Read Daniel Brockman's post for more.

It's a quite good post, too.  Very illuminating.  And it suggests a 
reason why Ruby is good candidate for a starter language.

Ruby has a small set of basic design principals. Their interaction may 
lead to complex behavior, but Ruby is not inherently complicated.  The 
exceptions to the basic principals are few.  So, when learning the 
language, one need keep track of only a handful of special cases; most 
behavior can be reasonably deduced.

Put another way, if there is complexity in Ruby, it is emergent, and one 
can pretty much avoid it until one needs it; in a language such as Java, 
it is intrinsic, and in your face.


James


-- 

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com  - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com  - Playing with Better Toys