On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 03:45:03AM +0900, Klaus Ramelow wrote:
> 
> In my opinion the Community is most helpful but, by the numbers of 
> questions resp
> problems, to me it seems a tremendeous waste of time (and thoughts) because
> this shows that (also) ruby lacks the clarity (not only) I am looking for.
> There would be much less questions and therefore more productivity,
> if there would be a clarity in this language - using human language 
> resp. mnemonic -
> like using Basic or Cobol or Pascal or D (or even Assembler).

Okay, I'm confused -- you just compared Pascal and assembly language
favorably to Ruby with regard to clarity and familiarity with human
language.  Have you actually looked at much Pascal code?  If so: Have
you actually looked at much Ruby code for the comparison?

It's true that BASIC and COBOL tend to use words taken directly from
English or made by mashing English language words together.  There's
more to easing the process of programming than that, however, and once
you're working with algorithms more complex than a "Hello World"
program, BASIC and COBOL start looking like hashed browns with catsup.

My first, immediate, reaction was to label you a troll.  I want to give
you the benefit of the doubt, however.  Perhaps you just failed to make
your point clearly, and I'm missing something important as a result.
Judging by my experience, however, your statements tend to imply the
opposite of reality.  You seem to be saying the sky is hard and the
ground is blue, that baking soda is wet and water is abrasive.


> 
> COMPUTER-LANGUAGES should not be treated as a religion but as a tool for
> DOING SOME WORK FOR US.
> We should not longue for a code consisting of the smallest number of 
> characters.
> There should be very little questions about the language (how will it me 
> understand,
> will it do what I want) but how can I implement the wanted logic using 
> human language
> resp mnemonic so there will be a readable and simple maintainable code
> (even from project independent poeple).

Every time you learn a new language, you have to learn new things.
Someone who knew Ruby would have to learn a bunch of new stuff trying to
pick up Pascal as a new programming language.  Same difference.  The
only reason there are fewer questions on a Pascal mailing list than here
is that there are fewer new Pascal users on a Pascal mailing list.

I agree that programming languages are tools, not religions.  That's one
of the reasons I favor Ruby over the languages with which you contrasted
it.  There are times when assembly language is more appropriate than
Ruby, of course, but those times are few and far between because of the
limitations of a language so difficult to use for complex operations
(and even a five-line Ruby program that can be read and understood in
less than a second performs some complex operations).  Ruby provides
abstraction which, like a longer lever, allows you to make bigger
changes with less effort, but can get in the way of extreme fine-tuning
of the sort you'd get with assembly language (or tweezers, for the lever
analogy).

If we wanted code consisting of the fewest possible characters, we'd be
using something like Ada.  We just want clean, readable, maintainable
code, so we use Ruby.

You made an off-hand reference to Python.  I don't like Python much.
Some of its idioms and some of its restrictions to "one right way" just
rub me the *wrong way*.  I don't like the syntax, I don't like the way
it tries to be an object oriented language while still keeping some
multi-paradigmatic language characteristics so that it seems a little
like there's a seam through the middle of the language where it was
stitched together.

That's all my personal taste, though; it's subjective opinion.  Looking
at it objectively, Python is an excellent language.  If you want
evidence that I'm not just defending Ruby against your complaints
because I like Ruby, here it is: I don't like Python.  I don't want to
have to program in that language for a living, ever.  I may eventually
want to learn more about the language, if only to better understand why
I don't like it, but at the same time I don't want to have to look at
Python source code.  Despite all this, I recognize its clarity, ease of
use, and clean design for those who *do* like it.  Pretty much
everything I've said about Ruby in this message, and the fact that your
conclusions about what's "wrong" with Ruby simply don't seem to fit the
facts, applies equally well to Python.

As far as I can tell, you're somewhere out in left field.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary
to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990