On 2010-03-21, David Masover <ninja / slaphack.com> wrote:
> Well, its Internet functionality is. It can still make phone calls, unless 
> you're counting phone calls towards bandwidth -- in which case, I hope you 
> aren't charging for minutes. (If you are, you're charging them twice for the 
> same call, which is a bit sleazy.)

It is more complicated.  For instance, one of my phones, if reset, restores
its phone book from the internet.

> In fact, that's exactly what they do anyway -- they just charge an additional, 
> arbitrary "smartphone" fee on top of it if you happen to be using a 
> smartphone. And you're saying it's because of bandwidth? With what they're 
> charging for bandwidth, you'd think that's already built into the bandwidth 
> plan -- and it has to be, to some extent, given that my "non-smartphone" can 
> already download apps, music, and video, and can message/email said 
> music/video to others.

It may well be, but I suspect that in practice, the difference in network
load between a phone that watches youtube and a phone that browses plain text
web sites is pretty large.

> Well, again, it comes down to compiling Ruby vs compiling your C program. If 
> they can compile Ruby, there's no compiling needed for your Ruby script, it 
> just runs -- so it's still exactly one compile step.

Except that, in practice, "I need to install a new programming language" is
a bigger deal than "I'll run this thing which uses existing standard tools".

> Huh. I concede the point, then. I'd have to look much closer for opportunities 
> to script, and you're probably right.

Basically, it isn't in Ruby for the same reason that libc isn't written in
Ruby.  It is, admittedly, arguably a special case.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam / seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!