David Masover wrote:
> I really don't think Perl can be made as pretty as Ruby, but then, Perl 
> has
> Acme::Lingua::Pirate::Perl, so anything's possible.

And I don't think Ruby can be made pretty at all.

>> > 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.
> 
> However, with required semicolons, you have every line looking ugly, 
> except
> just the edge cases. And that's just line endings -- never mind the
> dereference operator and $calar prefix that become pretty much pure 
> annoyance
> for OOP.

I hate languages that do not use any sigil. I want to know what is a 
variable and what is not and be able to tell the difference at the very 
first glance. And not have to think about what methods, functions, 
classes, ... exist or might exist in the future when naming my 
variables.

And for the semicolons making every line look ugly ... every sentence in 
english ends with a dot, except for those that end with a question or 
exclamation mark. Does that make the sentences ugly? A statement in a 
program is a sentence and a sentence should end with a marker, not fall 
off at the end of line unless I bend backwards.

>> Oftentimes the classes are simple to make but do they give you anything? 
> 
> Yes, it's called Object-Oriented Programming. Perhaps not in every case, 
> but I
> would argue that because of how much more tedious Perl makes classes -- 
> and
> nice patterns like setters/getters -- there are going to be cases where 
> a
> separate class would really be appropriate, but Perl people will tend 
> towards
> data structures instead.

OOP is not a holly grail, the fact that something is made into a class 
with getters and setters doesn't make it any better in itself. A class 
that only has the default getters and setters is a pointless class. No 
matter how easy was it to create it. You should not be creating classes 
just because you can, you should do that because it allows for a cleaner 
code, because it allows you to hide some complexity from whoever's using 
that class.

> I don't think this is a comment on the actual languages, but their 
> respective
> communities. If people are drawn to Ruby because of pretty syntax, 
> they're
> probably likely to hold clean, readable syntax as a desirable goal.

I don't think people get drawn to Ruby because of pretty syntax. I think 
it's all marketing. Ruby on Rails is (or is it still?) hip. The new cool 
kid on the block.

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