* Yukihiro Matsumoto (matz / ruby-lang.org) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Ruby Language Q's"
>     on 02/07/31, Dave Thomas <Dave / PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:
> 
> |we could write interfaces like
> |
> |      drawWidget fred   x: 10   y: 20  color: red
> 
> Removing commas make programs look more like Smalltalk, but it will
> make the language something but Ruby.
> 
> Dave, you have asked me once about the secret of Ruby's good design.
> I answered then, I didn't know.  I didn't even know why others did not
> come out with their languages just as good as Ruby.
> 
> I think I now understand the secret.  It's "style", and from what I've
> learned recently, the "style" is the most difficult word in English,
> probably in other human languages too.

If I attempted to quantify Ruby's "style", I would probably paraphrase
(plagarize?) the introductions of several Ruby books and call it
flexible and legible, yet terse.  Flexible, because of the adherence to
POLS as a design principle, gratuitous method aliasing both in the core
libraries and many well-written modules, and syntax which allows you to
chain operations via OO or logic operators.a  Legible, because Ruby is
free of the pointless casting nonsense that pollutes other high-level
languages, because variable prefixes allow you to quickly determine
scop, and because thorough use of closures encourage simple encapsulated
code blocks.  Terse, because unlike other languages, Ruby's shortcuts,
such as built-in regular expression support and omitting semicolons,
rarely come at the expense of flexibility or legibility.

Of course, style is entirely subjective by nature, and I'm sure everyone
else has their own ideas about Ruby's "style".

> 							matz.

-- 
Paul Duncan <pabs / pablotron.org>        pabs in #gah (OPN IRC)
http://www.pablotron.org/               OpenPGP Key ID: 0x82C29562