Forum: Ruby ruby vs perl6

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Jim Z. (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 11:56
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

The reason to send this mail is that I am still wondering why I should
study
and use Ruby.

I used perl for 5 years and recently I try to study and use Ruby...  I
can't
wait perl6 to relase.

sb. says Ruby is an alternative for perl, but how's when compared with
perl6? Ruby's vision vs Perl6's version?
Anthony G. (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 12:09
(Received via mailing list)
vision verses version?!

I'm also a perl programmer and have played with ruby (like it) but
there's nothing to compare with perl6 just yet. maybe later this year,
n'est-ce pas?!

Am looking forward to seeing perl6.

Jim Z. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote: Hi,

The reason to send this mail is that I am still wondering why I should
study
and use Ruby.

I used perl for 5 years and recently I try to study and use Ruby...  I
can't
wait perl6 to relase.

sb. says Ruby is an alternative for perl, but how's when compared with
perl6? Ruby's vision vs Perl6's version?

--
Best regards,
Jim Z.
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 12:14
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/1/07, Jim Z. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The reason to send this mail is that I am still wondering why I should study
> and use Ruby.
>
> I used perl for 5 years and recently I try to study and use Ruby...  I can't
> wait perl6 to relase.
Which is the very reason I use Ruby, maybe you should wait, but I say
now discover Ruby now, its paradigms will not be lost on you even if
you will get back to a perl6 one day.
I wish the perl community much luck and I am waiting for perl6 but
Ruby will remain my tool for everyday's usage for quite a while.
>
> sb. says Ruby is an alternative for perl, but how's when compared with
> perl6? Ruby's vision vs Perl6's version?
Simpler, less sophisticated, maybe slower but that has to be seen YARV
vs. PARROT,
not bloated (Perl6 will be bloated for 99% of the lambda usage, now
that is not bad, Perl6 will be the Meta Swiss Army Knife I guess)
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Jim Z.
>
Just some small thoughts.
Cheers
Robert
Jim Z. (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 12:16
(Received via mailing list)
Sorrry, Vision vs Vision?

Thanks,
Jim

2007/6/1, Anthony G. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:
Adrian H. (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 12:57
(Received via mailing list)
On 1 Jun 2007, at 08:55, Jim Z. wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The reason to send this mail is that I am still wondering why I
> should study
> and use Ruby.

Because Ruby is here and working now :-)

Because it's a nice language with some nice frameworks?

Because learning new languages is always good?

Because out-of-the-box OOP code becomes _so_ much nicer?

Because you'll encounter stuff that will make you a better Perl
developer?

> I used perl for 5 years and recently I try to study and use
> Ruby...  I can't
> wait perl6 to relase.

Me neither. Perl 6 looks fun - especially having the grammar as a
first class type. Now that has possibilities for deep fun.

I'm also still hoping Parrot will get some traction. Having used a
system with multiple languages compiling down to the same VM in the
eighties I know it can lead to some darn funky stuff.

> sb. says Ruby is an alternative for perl, but how's when compared with
> perl6? Ruby's vision vs Perl6's version?

I'd say they're quite different. Perl 6 is Perl with the dials turned
up to 11. Perl's TMTOWTDI is even more apparent - with the swiss army
chainsaw picking up more from functional languages, AOP, etc.

Ruby on the other hand does its best to be a small, elegant OOP
language. Which  is a darn nice thing.

Cheers,

Adrian
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 13:15
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:56:56PM +0900, Adrian H. wrote:
>
> I'd say they're quite different. Perl 6 is Perl with the dials turned
> up to 11. Perl's TMTOWTDI is even more apparent - with the swiss army
> chainsaw picking up more from functional languages, AOP, etc.
>
> Ruby on the other hand does its best to be a small, elegant OOP
> language. Which  is a darn nice thing.

Alas, I don't know quite enough about Perl 6 to be able to make a
credible comparison, but yours sounds believable, so I'll go with that.

In my mind, and based on what I know of it, the big win for Perl 6 will
be the fact that it actually does OOP well.  Don't misunderstand me:
Perl is one of my favorite languages.  I just happen be willing to call
a dog what it is when necessary, and Perl's OOP characteristics leave
something to be desired (as of 5.x).  Judging by the sample code I've
seen and the descriptions I've read, however, Perl 6 OOP looks like it's
going to be a really interesting, well-designed bag of tricks, and I
can't wait to learn it.

That won't stop me from using Ruby, though, any more than the fact I'm
using Ruby has stopped me from using Perl 5.x.  In fact, I've decided
to work on priority queue management scripts in Perl.  Meanwhile, the
signature at the end of this email was chosen randomly by a script I
wrote in Ruby.

Why limit yourself to one language?
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 13:48
(Received via mailing list)
Hi --

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Jim Z. wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The reason to send this mail is that I am still wondering why I should study
> and use Ruby.
>
> I used perl for 5 years and recently I try to study and use Ruby...  I can't
> wait perl6 to relase.
>
> sb. says Ruby is an alternative for perl, but how's when compared with
> perl6? Ruby's vision vs Perl6's version?

I'm not sure what sb. is (I'm bad at acronyms and abbreviations), but
Ruby is just a language, like Perl.  They're not exactly alternatives
for each other, or at least they don't have to be, so you should learn
Ruby if you like Ruby, regardless of whether or not you program in
Perl.

It's not a "winner-take-all" thing; you can learn more than one
language :-)


David
Adrian H. (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 14:31
(Received via mailing list)
On 1 Jun 2007, at 10:14, Chad P. wrote:
[snip]
> Alas, I don't know quite enough about Perl 6 to be able to make a
> credible comparison, but yours sounds believable, so I'll go with
> that.
[snip]

I said something vaguely similar in my "Perl Eye for the Ruby Guy"
talk at YAPC::Eu last year and Larry didn't jump down my throat (not
that he would coz he's a nice person :-) so I think it's vaguely
sane. Not that I've had the time to keep up with the latest Perl 6
changes.

> can't wait to learn it.
Yeah - the role/trait stuff does look nice. My poor brain can't copy
with the Synopsis docs at the moment though. I'm waiting for somebody
to write something a little more pedagogical.

> That won't stop me from using Ruby, though, any more than the fact I'm
> using Ruby has stopped me from using Perl 5.x.  In fact, I've decided
> to work on priority queue management scripts in Perl.  Meanwhile, the
> signature at the end of this email was chosen randomly by a script I
> wrote in Ruby.
>
> Why limit yourself to one language?

Indeed.

Unless it's Lisp :-)

Adrian
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 14:47
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 07:31:21PM +0900, Adrian H. wrote:
> sane. Not that I've had the time to keep up with the latest Perl 6
> changes.

Good to know!  Thanks.


>
> Yeah - the role/trait stuff does look nice. My poor brain can't copy
> with the Synopsis docs at the moment though. I'm waiting for somebody
> to write something a little more pedagogical.

It looks more than just nice, to me -- it looks downright yummy.  I love
learning new, innovative ways to do things.


> >
> >Why limit yourself to one language?
>
> Indeed.
>
> Unless it's Lisp :-)

There are those who might claim that, to the extent they're worth
learning, they're *all* Lisp.  I'm not one of them, but I do see where
they get that idea.
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 15:49
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/1/07, Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> credible comparison, but yours sounds believable, so I'll go with that.
> That won't stop me from using Ruby, though, any more than the fact I'm
> wit."
So your quoting program picked that quote, that's AI!!!!
vasudevram (Guest)
on 2007-06-01 20:40
(Received via mailing list)
>Why limit yourself to one language?
>Chad P.

>It's not a "winner-take-all" thing; you can learn more than one
language :-)
> David Black

Love those replies.

Why indeed. Another way of looking at it might be:

"Winners do take all" - that is, the best from all choices available,
as per their
needs and what they deem appropriate - and fun :)

Vasudev Ram
www.dancingbison.com
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-06-02 04:23
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 08:49:01PM +0900, Robert D. wrote:
> >--
> >CCD CopyWrite Chad P. [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> >W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for
> >wit."
> So your quoting program picked that quote, that's AI!!!!

My simple little Ruby script does a surprisingly good job of picking out
signatures that are appropriate to the subject matter of my emails.  I
used something called signify when I was using Debian as my primary OS,
and decided it was time to write my own since I figured it would take as
much time and effort to learn the quirks of a different random signature
program as to write a new one when I started migrating my life from
Debian to FreeBSD.  I might have thought the apparently fortuitous
appropriateness of my signature script's choices might just be some kind
of psychological effect if it wasn't for the fact that signify produced
far less serendipitous choices on average, from the same list of sigs,
than my Ruby script does.

I doubt it's AI, but it sure does seem difficult to explain by way of
mere randomness.
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2007-06-02 10:57
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/2/07, Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> much time and effort to learn the quirks of a different random signature
> program as to write a new one when I started migrating my life from
> Debian to FreeBSD.  I might have thought the apparently fortuitous
> appropriateness of my signature script's choices might just be some kind
> of psychological effect if it wasn't for the fact that signify produced
> far less serendipitous choices on average, from the same list of sigs,
> than my Ruby script does.
Thanks for the background, but...
>
> I doubt it's AI, but it sure does seem difficult to explain by way of
> mere randomness.
so do I, it was just funny that a quote was saying something bad about
quoiting,
I thought that noteworthy :)

Cheers
Robert
>
> --
> CCD CopyWrite Chad P. [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> McCloctnick the Lucid: "The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your
> time waving your hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do."
That might apply to programming in general and this weeks quiz too.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.