------art_34128_29303473.1223346706482
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

+1

I've used Java for years, and it's great, but I would not want to make Ruby
more like Java. I'm new to Ruby, but really enjoy it so far. As for Python,
I just can't get my self into it. I attended one of Mark Lutz's training
sessions, just to find I didn't care for coding Python. I'm sure it's a
great language, but I guess it's not for me. Mark did a great job. I find
Ruby very easy to use, and the syntax well thought out. Don't change a
thing, at least not until I've learned it better.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Bilyk, Alex <ABilyk / maxis.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> I always type (), [], {}, do/end, begin/end,<>, etc. upfront together and
> then insert what goes in between. I can't quite remember the last time I
> have mismatched these in any language.
>
> OTOH, I can't stand Python's semantically significant white space approach.
> It seems to give me trouble a lot more often than I'd like... perhaps
> because I have not used it long enough.
>
> Alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Collins [mailto:justincollins / ucla.edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:55 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: Why not adopt "Python Style" indentation for Ruby?
>
> Frasier Mruby wrote:
> > Dear Mats,
> >
> > I am kind of new to ruby and like it after looking python first.  As
> > some other people said, my only major complaint is it's many "END".
> > Among java/c/C++/python, the "END" keep reminding me the inconvenience
> > of it during coding ruby.  I like ruby because it's easy to learn, and
> > to read. It's designed for be friends of programmers.  But I feel the
> > "END" may have a negative role to ruby's purpose or attraction.
> >
>
> Like any new language, it takes some time to adjust your eyes and fingers.
>
> > I am fine to have "END" for class or methods. But for IF,WHILE, CASE,
> > FOR, etc., when there are many levels it often make me confused what the
> > matching part of the those "END"s are.
> >
>
> None of your suggestions seem to address this issue. Matching 'end' is
> no harder than matching '}'. If you get confused, add documentation like
> some people do:
>
> end#if
> end#while
> end#class
>
> > I understand and agree your comment that ruby had better to have
> > something to close the code block. But I sincerely hope you could come
> > up something else to replace the "END".
> >
> > My first thought to use brace "{...}" to replace "END" since it's a
> > popular convention.
> >
>
> But then it looks like C/Java.
>
> > I suggest to use only the "do...end" to formalize the blocks, brace {}
> > will be stopped to be used. It seems to me it's a waste of symbols to
> > have two ways to represent blocks, which may not be the most frequently
> > used.  Or consider to use use:
> >  "/* */", "|...|", "<...>", "[...]" , "(...)", "((...))", , "//...//", "
> > :...: ", " '...' ", " `...` " for blocks.
> >
> > To enhance readability is probably one of ruby's design purpose and I
> > really hope some thing could be done earlier to make the "END" looks
> > prettier.
> >
>
> I think 'end' looks fine, personally. I used to use curly braces all the
> time, but now I find myself using them as little as possible. do/end
> seems nicer and I don't get them confused with hashes that way.
>
> Besides, I enjoy the current look for conditionals. Given your later
> example, I prefer to see
>
> if b is not nil
>
> def bar b
>
> than
>
> if b is not nil {
>
> def bar b {
>
> Especially if it's going to lead to arguments about where that '{'
> should go. Same line? Next line? Next line indented? I don't want C. I
> don't want Java. I don't want parentheses around my conditionals when
> they aren't needed. I don't want to have to use my shift key more than
> necessary. I really don't see the problem with the current syntax. I
> respect your opinion but definitely do not agree.
>
> -Justin
>
>
>

------art_34128_29303473.1223346706482--