On Thursday 18 August 2005 9:33 pm, James Britt wrote:

> > 1) Are there people there that miss Perl, or have found Python not as
> > well suited to what they're doing as Perl was?  Ruby's Perl-like roots
> > may come in handy.  I think Ruby is a much more suitable language for
> > certain tasks than Python because of its Perl roots.
>
> I find this somewhat baffling.  I'm aware that Matz was influenced by
> certain aspects of Perl, but I really don't see any alleged "Perl roots"
> when coding Ruby.  (My biased take is that this is something Pythonitas
> like to toss out about any language that allows more than one way to do
> anything.)  There are things common to both languages, but not unique to
>   the pair.
>
> I used Perl for several years, and was fairly evangelistic about it with
> others.  I heard about Ruby, was initially put off, gave it another try,
> and never regretted it.
>
> I recently had to go poke through some Perl code, and it was truly
> foreign.  If there were any essential similarities with Ruby, they
> eluded me.

I came to Ruby from many years of Perl zealotry, and one of the things that 
made the switch very, very easy was that when it came to the methods 
available on the core classes, they were generally named the same as the 
keyword to do the same thing in Perl.  So I didn't have to sit in the Pickaxe 
class reference and lookup methods to do most of the common stuff.  Most of 
the time if I just use a method name the same as what the function was in 
Perl, it worked.

So, once I adapted to blocks and to using a method call syntax on almost 
everything, I was already productively writing Ruby code.  The learning curve 
between initially reading about Ruby and actually writing useful code was 
quite shallow, coming from Perl.


Kirk Haines