David Masover wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 June 2008 12:20:37 Star Cross wrote:
> 
>> Lesson: You can make Ruby every bit as messy as Perl if you want to.
> 
> Very true. But can you make Perl as pretty as Ruby?

BS. Not unexpected. Besides beauty is in the eye of the beerholder, 
cleanliness likewise.

> Every language can be made messy. Not every language can be made clean.

Agreed. For example with the meaningful newlines there are cases when 
you can't make the Ruby code clean, because you either can't break the 
overly long line or you can, but you end up with an operator lost on the 
far right or with some silly line continuation character.

Robert Klemme (Guest) on 04.06.2008 23:00 wrote:
> I have the impression that when writing Perl programs people usually 
> use nested structures of arrays, hashes and scalars to represent
> complex data whereas in Ruby land people - at least I - tend to rather
> create classes and use them because it is so much easier than in Perl.

Or could it be that using the nested structures is harder in Ruby? 
Oftentimes the classes are simple to make but do they give you anything? 
You should not be creating classes just because it's easy to do so. You 
should create them because it gives you something.

Dave Bass (dogsbody) on 05.06.2008 17:01 wrote:
> I find the contrary. Uncommented Perl is typically impossible to 
> understand unless you wrote it yourself. It *is* possible to write 
> clear Perl but, as with C, most people don't bother.

Uncommented hungarian is impossible to understand as well ... unless you 
actually know that language. Or maybe you were talking about golf or 
yaph or poetry?

Jenda

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.