On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 ale / crimson.propagation.net wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, David Alan Black wrote:
> 
> > It still bugs me.  Someone reading this:
> > 
> >   They made a nice attempt to duplicate perl's interpolating strings
> >   through the use of "xxxx #{var_name} xxxxx"
> > 
> > is unlikely to realize that in fact....
> 
> That's true. But actually I don't regard this as a major failure of
> us, the community or peaceful Ruby advocates. I guess the author of
> above statement will have nice awakening when he tries Ruby next time.
> 
> And I guess he will have his awakening, as he seemed to be one
> searching for better way to do things. Anyway, he had couple of other, good,
> remarks, which really touch the essence of Ruby too.

Yes -- I certainly don't dismiss everything he said; it's more that a
couple of things caught my attention as being in the category of "OK,
now let's see how well Ruby has captured the functionality and flavor
of Perl."  Not that I don't expect language comparisons.  But that's
not exactly what this is.  It's more like an obstacle people seem to
put in their own way, by assuming that Ruby's goal is to shadow Perl.
Again, not to pounce on that one writer, but something like: "I'll
have delve deeper to see how well they copied the TMTOWTDI philosophy"
contains a whole set of presuppositions about Ruby which are going to
make the process of *seeing* Ruby (not even understanding it, or
liking it, but just perceiving it) much more difficult.

> > Or is it just a matter of the passage of time and an additive effect?
> 
> I'd give up hope if it's only additive effect. But I've seen many
> great things to build up the well-known "brand" by multiplicative or
> exponential effect.

How about "cumulative"?  :-)


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav