Hi --

On Sat, 10 May 2008, Marc Heiler wrote:

> I was about to comment on something but when i read this:
>> What does Ruby gain from its syntactic quirks
> I could not really continue.
> It reminds me of the terminology "monkeypatching".
> I dont really want to comment towards derogative terminology. (To me, a
> quirk implies something derogative. Same as monkey-patching implies to
> me as a "not good patch" that was applied under speed pressure, very
> quickly and without much thought etc but using a derogative term for it
> ..).

Also, a quirk can only be measured in relation to something non-quirky
-- in this case, I guess, the syntax of other languages. (I don't mean
to lay this at the feet of the OP of this thread; it's a pretty
constant theme.) The sense that Ruby is uniquely accountable for the
ways in which it differs from other languages is very persistent. I'm
not sure why, especially now that it's got such a large usership. Or
maybe that has something to do with it; I don't know. It's all very
meta-meta :-)

>> I recognize that this is potentially a very "religious" question
>
> I dont really think it is per se. But one maybe has to be careful
> which words he uses. Unless that guy in question does not care
> anyway maybe (mister "rails is a ghetto") :)
>
> However, the python vs ruby comparison is, IMHO, really not such a
> huge difference, because both share many goals. It is much more a
> beneficial competition between the two.

I remember hearing an intro presentation about Python where you could
have crossed out Python and put in Ruby and it would have been
*exactly* what people say all the time about Ruby: concise, elegant,
OO, doesn't get in your way, etc. etc. The two languages definite
share many goals, and appear to have succeeded at them. (I'm not
interested in Python myself, but I do take Python programmers at their
word about what they love about it.)

> With perl biting the dust (I could not resist ... ;> )
>
> One example - is that in speed comparisons, python outperforms ruby,
> but I never understood why anyone who uses such "slow" languages
> would care about speed anyway.
>
> DSL is also a "difficult" term, because I have seen about 6 different
> definitions of a DSL. It would be much better if people could all
> agree about a DSL. And most importantly, if a DSL is a real language
> *WITHIN* that language, or whether it is not.

It's all about the 'L' :-)

http://dablog.rubypal.com/2007/4/17/the-l-in-dsl-langue-ou-langage


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
   INTRO TO RAILS         June 9-12            Berlin
   ADVANCING WITH RAILS   June 16-19           Berlin
   INTRO TO RAILS         June 24-27           London (Skills Matter)
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!