On Tuesday 02 December 2003 01:47 pm, Chris Uppal wrote:
> John W. Long wrote:
> > > > > I want to add the observation that the Perlisms in Ruby were
> > > > > a major (perhaps
> > > > > *the* major) factor that put me off the language when I
> > > > > looked at it a year or
> > > > > so ago.
> >
> > [...]
> > Why have you not looked into perl? Or even ruby for that matter?
>
> Um... Am I misunderstanding you ?   I *have* looked at Ruby, I think that
> there is much that is of value there, but there are some aspects I don't
> like (speaking here, again, as an outsider) and which put me off it.
>
> I have also looked at Perl -- about every two years since Perl 2 (or so),
> and recoiled in baffled horror each time.
>
> >I admit
> > when I first started working with ruby the $1, $2, $3 variables seemed a
> > bit strange, but after working with them I can certainly say it is a
> > feature that is both useful and understandable.
>
> I'm a long time UNIX programmer, so the '$' variables, don't seem specially
> *strange*, I just don't think they have any place in a language that *I*
> want to use for *my* purposes.  I'm very familar with shell programming, so
> I speak {k,ba,}sh + awk + <whatever> happily, and feel no need for a
> scripting language to replace that combo; what I would like to find is a
> flexible, properly dynamic, totally OO, reasonably scaleable, language for
> use in contexts where I'm not being obliged to use C++ or Java, and where
> I'm not able to use my preferred Smalltalk.  Ruby *so nearly* fits the bill
> -- kinda fustrating ;-)

I really don't understand this. You won't use Ruby b/c it has some EXTRA 
Perl-like features? D.N.C.  Just don't use them.

-t0