Chad Perrin wrote:
> Would you rather implement a complex object oriented application
> architecture in Ruby or Perl, knowing Perl's obtuse OOP syntax and with a
> benchmark-suggested 1.1% performance improvement for Perl, all else being
> equal?  I'd look at the 1.1% performance improvement and say "So f-ing
> what?  It's OOP.  Use Ruby."

Well ... I guess I don't think Perl's OOP syntax is all that bad. I can 
read and write Perl OO scripts (now) and, as I've noted before, I am one 
of several Perl programmers and one of only one Ruby programmers in my 
general work neighborhood. I haven't tried Python yet -- I don't even 
read Python -- so I wouldn't know how its object features compare with 
Ruby's. But I'll also admit that if it were a mandated OO project, it 
would be difficult to rule out Java for any "scripting language".

> I've heard incredibly good things about Clean.  I've also witnessed
> something like a meltdown on a mailing list because someone reached a
> frustration saturation point dealing with the language.  I don't know if
> that was more the language's fault, or the fault of the programmer's
> background in something like Java.  I'm interested in giving it a look at
> some point, but I have other stuff in the queue first.  It's probably way
> back there around the level of Erlang and Forth for me -- both of which
> are languages about which I've heard great things, but are well outside
> the range of my aims right now.

Well, I already *know* Forth. :) Unless you're just a hard-core language 
freak or want to get involved with embedded systems, you'd probably be 
just as well off ignoring Forth.

Besides, I'm only downloading Clean because the Vector Pascal download 
site is down! :)