On Jan 31, 2004, at 10:58, Michael campbell wrote:

> Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
>
>> This rubyist will be much happier when the flip-flop is _buried_.
>
> Why?  If you didn't like it, why would you use it?

An interesting question; I'll try to give a coherent answer. First of 
all, I have to read other people's code, and if they use obscure, 
hard-to-understand constructs that I have to look up every time, it 
makes it much harder to grok what's going on. Since I learn most 
libraries by reading their code (and I often do that even when they 
have top-notch docs - I'm just that kind of guy), opaque language 
constructs are particularly biting.

Secondly, and really more importantly, is the issue of aesthetics. 
Every bit of syntax, whether I use it or not, affects and reflects the 
language as a whole. One of the things I like about Ruby the language 
is that the syntax tends to explain itself. I don't use or even see for 
loops very much in Ruby code, but when I run across one, it's pretty 
obvious what's going on. The flip-flop gives me no external clues as to 
its modus operandi, and I don't like the way affects Ruby, by making a 
bit of the gem opaque, and how it reflects Ruby, when someone sees it 
and goes, "WHAT IN TARNATION IS THAT THING?!?" and I have to explain 
that Ruby unfortunately gained a few of the "P" language's bad points 
along with a lot of its good points.

That's why I personally would like to see it gone, and good riddance. 
You, of course, are welcome to root for a pardon, but I just wanted to 
make sure the other side of the aisle was represented :-)

Just my $0.02,


Nathaniel

<:((><