>>http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8356  it's always nice to see another=
>>article.   lwn picked this up as well, so maybe it will get some eyes.
>
> Nice intro article, though it repeats a common misconception:

and it uses print "\n" and some other non-niceties.
I'm not very much impressed.

The good thing, though, is that the article is enthousiastic and
repeatedly claiming it's such short code.

> "Ruby was designed to be an "object-oriented scripting language", and it 
> indeed feels like a cross between Perl and Smalltalk. It assumes that you 
> understand object-oriented programming and probably is not a good first 
> language for someone to learn."

like, where's the object in
   puts "Hello, world!"
?
it is there, but you don't see it. You only see scripting (for some
definition of scripting). Sometimes you see only OO.

> Why is it that people have the idea the ojects are difficult for 
> programming newbies?  Wasn't Smalltalk intended as a tool for teaching 
> children to program?

Because many ppl learned OO *after* learning some imperative language?
Which means they had to adapt their mind, instead of using an unspoiled
brain.

We (CS dept) once introduced some secondary school students to programming,
with Gofer; they were running code within minutes. Try that with Pascal or
C. Which made me wondering why on earth we once started with Pascal,
ourselves...

Ruby can do that, too, with irb.
Then after a short while tell them `ruby script.rb` is easier for
somewhat larger stuff and they'll be fine.

Starting with Ruby might make people unable to bear certain other languages.
Which is a Good Thing, in a way :)

+--- Kero ------------------------- kero@chello@nl ---+
|  all the meaningless and empty words I spoke        |
|                       Promises -- The Cranberries   |
+--- M38c --- http://members.chello.nl/k.vangelder ---+