Ruby Forum Ruby > Bruce Eckel and Ruby

<sigh>

I really don't understand the point of this. If you like Python, use it.
If you like Ruby, use it. I am in the latter category.

In fact, I am not opposed to learning both. At the moment I haven't 
time,
but later maybe I will. It's a language, not a religion.

His use of "hyperenthusiast" is interesting. Does it apply only to 
non-Python
people?

As for the "Ruby has better OO" argument -- Pythonists call it FUD, but 
it
appears simple common sense (from what Python I've seen). But I think a
large part of that is that Ruby and Python are evolutionarily different.
I've heard -- this may be wrong -- that Python's OO descends from 
Modula-3
or some such. I can't comment. I do know that it seems less OO than Ruby
to me (or Java, C++, Object Pascal).

As for significant whitespace -- surely it's a matter of opinion whether
this is the "right" way or not. One can make arguments in both 
directions.
I was initially drawn to the idea, but after playing with it, I found it
had its drawbacks.

Most (human) languages are written left to right. Are Arabic and Hebrew
"wrong" because they aren't?

Give it a rest, people.


Hal

On 12/20/05, Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
> <sigh>
>
> I really don't understand the point of this. If you like Python, use it.
> If you like Ruby, use it. I am in the latter category.
>
> In fact, I am not opposed to learning both. At the moment I haven't time,
> but later maybe I will. It's a language, not a religion.

I agree with you completely.

> His use of "hyperenthusiast" is interesting. Does it apply only to non-Python
> people?

I think the problem he has (like many other Pythonistas, Javans,
Perlists, etc.) is that Ruby is getting a lot of exposure now thanks
to Rails, and he feels his livelihood might be threatened by what he
perceives as simply a fad. I think he is calling all the people who
tend to jump from fad to fad in the computing world as
hyperenthusiasts, and he may have a point. I don't think he meant that
all Ruby or Rails people were these flaky hyperenthusiasts.

Maybe he is right and Rails is just a fad, but based on how people are
reacting to it, I'm not so sure. Surely all the Railists are not just
under the spell of DHH's skilled marketing, eh? After all the best
marketing is word of mouth.

Ryan

Hal Fulton wrote:
> <sigh>
<muchGoodStuffElided/>

> 
> Give it a rest, people.
> 

Amen.

Besides, we should be ranting about how Ruby is better than Lisp.

:)



James

--

http://www.ruby-doc.org       - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com      - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com     - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com   - Building Better Tools

James Britt wrote:

>
> Besides, we should be ranting about how Ruby is better than Lisp.
>
> :)

Ruby kicks Cobol's ass!

Jamey

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, 
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain 
confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended 
recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email and 
any materials contained in any attachments is prohibited. If you receive 
this message in error, or are not the intended recipient(s), please 
immediately notify the sender by email and destroy all copies of the 
original message, including attachments.

I think that if you think Bruce Eckel is threatened by Ruby then you
need to read about Bruce Eckel. He is only asking "why".

Robert

Ryan Leavengood wrote:
> I think the problem he has (like many other Pythonistas, Javans,
> Perlists, etc.) is that Ruby is getting a lot of exposure now thanks
> to Rails, and he feels his livelihood might be threatened by what he
> perceives as simply a fad.

You nailed it, Ryan. This has little (if anything) to do with
which-language-is-better, and everything to do with earning a living.
Mr. Eckel makes a good living teaching Java and writing about Java and
consulting about Java and the adoption of anything other than Java hurts
his income.

There are a few of us hobbyists that can afford to play dueling
languages 'cause it's fun and what-the-hell, we've got time, but the
guys out there traveling and lecturing and writing and teaching and
consulting have to put food on the table. Bruce Eckel thinks his best
chance is Java. Bruce  Tate thinks there are greener pastures elsewhere.
I wish 'em both the best of luck.

Just a thought: a programming language that is free, easy to learn,
rewards mastery, and has flocks of eager devotees who want to share
their knowledge for free offers little incentive to a guy who needs to
earn a living writing and lecturing and teaching and consulting.

Jamey Cribbs wrote:

> James Britt wrote:
>
>>
>> Besides, we should be ranting about how Ruby is better than Lisp.
>>
>> :)
>
>
> Ruby kicks Cobol's ass!
>

But Ruby won't be truly complete until you can do something like this:

----------------------------------
require 'inline'

class Inline::Bf < Inline::BrainF_ck  # [1]
  def initialize(mod)
    super(mod)
  end

  def import(header)
    @src << "#import #{header}"
  end
end

class MyClass
  inline(:Bf) do |builder|

    builder.bf %q{
 >+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++[<++++>-]<+.+++++++..+++.[-]>++++++++[<++++>-]
<.#>+++++++++++[<+++++>-]<.>++++++++[<+++>-]<.+++.------.--------.[-]>++++++++[
<++++>-]<+.[-]++++++++++.
    }
  end
end

MyClass.new.test
--------------------------------


[1] http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/


Although I'd bet I'm not the first to think of this :)

On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:12 PM, Timothy Hunter wrote:

> This has little (if anything) to do with which-language-is-better,  
> and everything to do with earning a living. Mr. Eckel makes a good  
> living teaching Java and writing about Java and consulting about  
> Java and the adoption of anything other than Java hurts his income.

I doubt there are very many professional programmers relying on a
single language to put food on the table.  I don't think Bruce is an
exception here.  He writes books about C++ in addition to Java, for
example.

I read the article and it sounded to me like it favored both Python
and C# over Java.

James Edward Gray II

Come on folks ...

Python is "different" ... it implements objects, has a number of nice
reflection things, dynamic binding, and more ...

It's got it's own syntax ... and that hasn't changed ... they do things
their way ( again "different" ).

... beyond that, the real differences were already listed off in a VERY 
good
post ...

To me ( and yes I've used both and built real tools with both ) ... the 
main
difference that works the way I think is that ruby has blocks ...

Python has lambdas, but they don't compare...  that to me is the big
difference... everything else is sugar/fluff.

If you think the python way , then everything is happy in Python ville.

If you think the ruby way, then rubyopolis is your happy place...

That's all the end ... at least they are BOTH taking away from the Perl
community & the other static/compiled languages out there ...

... I respect them for being who they are and building a tool that has 
made
an impact on the community ( RedHat's install tool, OpenOffice using it 
as a
macro language, etc. )....

... Ruby will eventually win it's larger battles too.  The reason we 
haven't
is because we are all happy enough with our choice to use Ruby that we 
are
just getting our work done, not fighting wars.

Anyways, just my $0.02.

j.

--
"Remember. Understand. Believe. Yield! -> http://ruby-lang.org"

Jeff Wood

Timothy Hunter wrote:
> Mr. Eckel makes a good living teaching Java and writing about Java and
> consulting about Java and the adoption of anything other than Java hurts
> his income.

Mr. Eckel has written books and articles on C++, Java and Python.  In 
fact, from what I can tell, he rather prefers Python over Java. So I 
don't think his livelyhood is in any danger if Java suddenly becomes 
unpopular.

--
-- Jim Weirich

On 20/12/05, Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
> <sigh>
>
> I really don't understand the point of this. If you like Python, use it.
> If you like Ruby, use it. I am in the latter category.

http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2005/12/ruby_hyperenthusiasm_and_happi.html

-austin

Hal Fulton wrote:

> Most (human) languages are written left to right. Are Arabic and
> Hebrew "wrong" because they aren't?

Yes?

        nikolai (who wants to debate the merits of top-to-bottom writing
                 as well)

On 20/12/05, Robert Hicks <sigzero@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that if you think Bruce Eckel is threatened by Ruby then you
> need to read about Bruce Eckel. He is only asking "why".

No, he's not, actually. I don't think he's threatened, but he's
actively throwing stones about a language that he doesn't understand
and apparently doesn't want to understand.

Which is fine (that he doesn't want to understand, at least), but he
should stop pretending that he's just asking "why".

-austin

Jim Weirich wrote:
> unpopular.
With all due respect, Jim, I think it would be a mistake to overlook Mr.
Eckel's pecuniary interests in this debate. I was at Barnes & Noble just
this afternoon and I didn't see his name on any books about Ruby.

Nikolai Weibull ha scritto:
>                  as well)
actually, I still think bustrofedic, or whatever it is spelled in
english, still is the best writing system ever. Start top left then go
right, one line down then go left and so on

On Dec 20, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Timothy Hunter wrote:

> hurts his income.
Guys, this isn't a good path to follow. Bruce has been an asset to
the entire software community for years. I don't agree with
everything he says -- I don't know if anybody does, and I don't know
that that isn't exactly as he wants it -- but whatever he says *is*
his opinion and not some ploy. Furthermore, he is fundamentally on
our side... just maybe not in the details... yet.

Lose the hostility and read his article again. He is asking a fair
question. Why *would* a programmer already into Python switch to
Ruby? My question is does it matter if we can or cannot get a Python
programmer to switch?

Cheers,
Bob

----
Bob Hutchison          -- blogs at <http://www.recursive.ca/hutch/>
Recursive Design Inc.  -- <http://www.recursive.ca/>
Raconteur              -- <http://www.raconteur.info/>

On 20/12/05, Bob Hutchison <hutch@recursive.ca> wrote:
> Lose the hostility and read his article again. He is asking a fair
> question. Why *would* a programmer already into Python switch to
> Ruby? My question is does it matter if we can or cannot get a Python
> programmer to switch?

Bob:

Mr Eckel is not merely asking the question. He is asking the question
in perhaps as hostile a way as he can without saying that Rubyists are
poopyheads.

Frankly, I don't *want* Mr Eckel to become a Ruby programmer (and say
so on the blog entry I linked to earlier); he's likely to find all
sorts of "flaws" that are in fact features that I *love* about Ruby.
Similarly, a lot of the "features" he finds in Python I consider
flaws. He won't be happy in Ruby, so he shouldn't use it.

The pecuniary interests question is raised only because the first
commenter on Mr Eckel's article raised it about Mr Tate. Neither is a
legitimate question here and maligns everyone involved.

-austin

Robert Hicks wrote:
> I think that if you think Bruce Eckel is threatened by Ruby then you
> need to read about Bruce Eckel. He is only asking "why".

I didn't say he was threatened. But I think "why" is ultimately a
matter of taste.

It doesn't seem mysterious to me that different languages appeal to
different people.


Hal

Timothy Hunter wrote:
> Jim Weirich wrote:
>> unpopular.
> With all due respect, Jim, I think it would be a mistake to overlook Mr.
> Eckel's pecuniary interests in this debate. I was at Barnes & Noble just
> this afternoon and I didn't see his name on any books about Ruby.

It would indeed be a mistake to overlook it, but I don't see the facts 
supporting the conclusion.

Mr. Eckel is a strong critic of Java, particularly in the area of 
checked exceptions and generics.  Back when I was actually teaching Java 
(6 or so years ago), his book "Thinking in Java" was one the few books 
that was able to present the language without being "gushy" about it. 
He frequently pointed out warts in the language.  He is also an advocate 
of dynamic typing over static typing and written several good articles 
supporting that position.  And finally, he a big fan and advocate of 
Python, one of those "free, easy to learn, rewards mastery, and has 
flocks of eager devotees who want to share their knowledge for free" 
languages.

In short, to accuse him of being short sighted with respect to other 
languages because he has a vested interest in teaching Java needs to 
ignore the fact that he never been slow to critisize Java in the past 
when he sees problems.

And finally, his blog entry is less about supporting Java, and more 
asking the question of why Ruby over Python.

I think its simply a matter that he prefers the "Zen of Python" over the 
"Ruby Way" ... a position held by many people.

--
-- Jim Weirich

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> poopyheads.
If you read that article a little carefully, Bruce Eckel is mad about
Bruce Tate ignoring Python in "Beyond Java". And he has a point. Python
has been a good alternative to Java for years. And it still is.

And in my oppinion Bruce Eckel could be more valuable asset to the Ruby
community that Bruce Tate, since Bruce Tate is just spreading FUD to
sell books in my oppinion, but still ... doesn't have time to
investigate Python which is THE traditional alternative to Java.

I really hope Bruce Eckel changes his mind and releases a "Thinking in
Ruby" book.
That would be awesome.

Jim Weirich wrote:
> 
> It would indeed be a mistake to overlook it, but I don't see the facts 
> supporting the conclusion.

Well, never let it be said that I was foolish enough to argue with Jim
Weirich :-) Perhaps I'm letting my own preconceptions creep in. However,
I don't have a (financial) dog in this fight since I don't earn a living
from either Java, Python, or Ruby.

Timothy Hunter wrote:
> Well, never let it be said that I was foolish enough to argue with Jim
> Weirich :-) 

Sigh, now if I could only convince my kids of this.  :)

--
-- Jim Weirich

An interesting article. I didn't read it as being con ruby. Just
reiterating what we all know about not understanding a problem until
you've implemented the solution at least once before.

In article <43A89B05.7060807@hypermetrics.com>,
Hal Fulton  <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
>Robert Hicks wrote:
>> I think that if you think Bruce Eckel is threatened by Ruby then you
>> need to read about Bruce Eckel. He is only asking "why".
>
>I didn't say he was threatened. But I think "why" is ultimately a
>matter of taste.

Right, but Eckel seemed to be suggesting that one must use a much more
objective, almost scientific method for lanauge selection (and implied 
that
Tate relied too much on 'preference').  In doing so he seemed to imply 
that
people who had chosen Python had gone through this objective, scientific
process while those who were headed in the direction of Ruby had not.

>
>It doesn't seem mysterious to me that different languages appeal to
>different people.
>

Agreed, however, it seems that for many years now that there have been 
some
doubts about whether there is room for two (seemingly similar)open 
source,
dynamic, OO languages which largely appeal to the same developer base.
This may actually be at the root of the animosity between the two camps:
perhaps we each have a sneaking suspicion that if we could get the good
developers from the other camp to come to ours we would be able to get a 
lot
further (in development of libraries, docs, VMs etc.).  A couple of 
years ago
Ruby was the underdog, but now in terms of mindshare I think Ruby and 
Python are
close to parity.  If the momentum continues then Ruby 'mindshare' could
outpace Python mindshare and perhaps begin to attract Python developers. 
That
may be seen as worrisome to some in the Python camp including Eckel. 
The
underlying message (reading between the lines) of some of Eckel's 
comments
about Ruby seems to be a message for the Python faithful to remain in 
the
fold.

While on the surface there seems to be a religious conflict between the 
two
groups, perhaps what's really going on is a competition for resources 
where
resources in this case are developers.

Phil

In article <9e7db9110512201553t1355cb4ah@mail.gmail.com>,
Austin Ziegler  <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
>poopyheads.
>
>Frankly, I don't *want* Mr Eckel to become a Ruby programmer (and say
>so on the blog entry I linked to earlier); he's likely to find all
>sorts of "flaws" that are in fact features that I *love* about Ruby.
>Similarly, a lot of the "features" he finds in Python I consider
>flaws. He won't be happy in Ruby, so he shouldn't use it.

Oh, now that's going a bit over the top don't you think?  I would think 
that
we should actually encourage Mr. Eckel to try out Ruby.  We should 
welcome him
to instead of hanging out a sign that says "No Eckel's allowed!". 
Afterall,
we're the friendly language newsgroup.  If Mr. Eckel comes here with 
questions
I would hope that we would welcome him and answer them courteously (and 
no
"see I told you so" type responses either).

Better to win friends than to make enemies.

Phil

In article <1135123633.809754.318990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
bonefry <bellarchitects@gmail.com> wrote:
>> in perhaps as hostile a way as he can without saying that Rubyists are
>
>I really hope Bruce Eckel changes his mind and releases a "Thinking in
>Ruby" book.
>That would be awesome.
>

Indeed that would be awesome.  The more Ruby books the better.  And when
people see someone embrace something that they formerly criticized that
definitely gets people interested (see St. Paul :)

So maybe we should be inviting Mr. Eckel over to try out Ruby for a 
while.
"Come on in, the water's fine!"

Phil

Phil Tomson wrote:
> 
> Oh, now that's going a bit over the top don't you think?  I would think that 
> we should actually encourage Mr. Eckel to try out Ruby.  We should welcome him 
> to instead of hanging out a sign that says "No Eckel's allowed!".  Afterall, 
> we're the friendly language newsgroup.  If Mr. Eckel comes here with questions 
> I would hope that we would welcome him and answer them courteously (and no 
> "see I told you so" type responses either).
> 

Sure. But he's been railing against Ruby for five years now (unless I am
miscounting). When exactly would you expect him to try it?

Besides, his negative attitude seems to indicate he thinks he already 
*has*
tried it, or why would he be so opposed to it?


Hal

In article <43A8BA6C.9070300@hypermetrics.com>,
Hal Fulton  <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
>Sure. But he's been railing against Ruby for five years now (unless I am
>miscounting). When exactly would you expect him to try it?

I'm not expecting him to at this point, however I don't think we should 
post a
"keep out Bruce Eckel and this means you!" sign as was suggested by the 
other
poster.

>
>Besides, his negative attitude seems to indicate he thinks he already *has*
>tried it, or why would he be so opposed to it?

Perhaps he has.  However, I noticed from reading his rant that he 
mentions
Rails and then goes on about Python's contenders and mentions Zope and
concludes that Zope is just too complicated.  Then he says that he would 
use
PHP5 for his web programming needs (skipping entirely over Rails it 
seems - he
doesn't seem to want to even touch it).

At any rate, if Eckel is our Grinch then perhaps we should smother him 
in
kindness ;-)  Invite him to speak at RubyConf, or something like that.
Could be interesting.  Basically, I'm thinking that perhaps we should 
try to
move him out of the 'enemy' column and into the 'friend' column.  If we
attack him for attacking us then we'll get nowhere.

Phil

Phil Tomson wrote:
> 
> I'm not expecting him to at this point, however I don't think we should post a 
> "keep out Bruce Eckel and this means you!" sign as was suggested by the other 
> poster.

I don't think anyone seriously suggested that.

> 
> At any rate, if Eckel is our Grinch then perhaps we should smother him in 
> kindness ;-)  Invite him to speak at RubyConf, or something like that.  
> Could be interesting.  Basically, I'm thinking that perhaps we should try to 
> move him out of the 'enemy' column and into the 'friend' column.  If we 
> attack him for attacking us then we'll get nowhere.

I'm not interested in attacking him, and I hope no one else is. I'd be
as happy to see him here as I would anyone else.


Hal

Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
> In fact, I am not opposed to learning both. At the moment
> I haven't time, but later maybe I will. It's a language, not
> a religion.

I'm tried both as well.  In fact, I was directed to ruby by
a poster on c.l.py...

> His use of "hyperenthusiast" is interesting. Does it apply
> only to non-Python people?

He probably means "fanboy", but was put off by Python's "one and
only one reasonable way" of doing things.  :)

> As for the "Ruby has better OO" argument -- Pythonists call it
> FUD, but it appears simple common sense (from what Python I've
> seen).  But I think a large part of that is that Ruby and
> Python are evolutionarily different.  I've heard -- this may
> be wrong -- that Python's OO descends from Modula-3 or some
> such. I can't comment. I do know that it seems less OO than
> Ruby to me (or Java, C++, Object Pascal).

I'm tempted to join in the "Python OO is weak" chant.  But your
last point, that they are simply different approaches, is valid,
and I shall refrain... for now.

> As for significant whitespace -- surely it's a matter of
> opinion whether this is the "right" way or not. One can make
> arguments in both directions.  I was initially drawn to the
> idea, but after playing with it, I found it had its drawbacks.

There are two things that I think python got absolutely *right*:
One is Python's ternary expressions ("if 0 < x < 10:"), which
have functional equivalents in Ruby.  The other is significant
whitespace.

I think this has to do with the fact that Python, being derived
from an educational language, imposes educational practices on
its code; it's also quite possible that if modern educational
languages focused more on actually teaching good practices and
style, and less on making sure they use the latest GUI toolkit
endorsed by Microsoft/Sun, I wouldn't have such a strong opinion
on the matter.

> Most (human) languages are written left to right. Are Arabic
> and Hebrew "wrong" because they aren't?

    puts "#$your_way sucks" unless
        $your_way.equal?( $my_way )   # :)

That said,

I've been a Ruby hobbyist for about 4 or 5 years now, and I had
no idea what "Rails" was until recently.  I knew that traffic in
c.l.r had more than tripled in recent months, and that instead
of the normal Ruby idiom/syntax/language questions, I started
seeing a lot of configuration questions about some application
framework apparently based on ruby.

I'm glad ruby is getting the attention I believe it deserves.
And I've seen some exciting things happen in the core language.
But Rails is a framework.  Ruby is a language.  Many dozens of
developers churn out Rails applications without ever really
knowing much more than tutorial-level Ruby.  And as a web
development framework, it can't escape being a fad.  Some fads
fade into obscurity (ASP, HTML::Mason, or *gasp* Zope), and some
fade into oblivion (ColdFusion).  Even PHP's seeming Golden Age
will eventually pass, and either pass its torch, or burn out.

I've played with Rails, and find it fascinating.  And hopefully
it will grow and evolve and influence technology, and we will
learn and benefit, but it will fade.  I only hope Ruby doesn't
invest all of itself in this trend and fade with it.

You could all spend another 20-30 post thread psychoanalyzing my
article and extrapolating information about how I was abused by
Zope as a child, or we could get back to what brought us here
originally, which is having fun with a great language and the
great tools it brings with it.

</rant>

My USD$0.05,
Tim Hammerquist

On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:57 PM, Phil Tomson wrote:

> While on the surface there seems to be a religious conflict between  
> the two
> groups, perhaps what's really going on is a competition for  
> resources where
> resources in this case are developers.

This is an interesting point that deserves some consideration. This
has more than once crossed my mind.

I've got a few thoughts on this but can't quite express them
intelligibly yet. I suspect some of you will have no problems at all :-)

>
> Phil

----
Bob Hutchison          -- blogs at <http://www.recursive.ca/hutch/>
Recursive Design Inc.  -- <http://www.recursive.ca/>
Raconteur              -- <http://www.raconteur.info/>

On 20/12/05, Phil Tomson <ptkwt@aracnet.com> wrote:
>> flaws. He won't be happy in Ruby, so he shouldn't use it.
> Oh, now that's going a bit over the top don't you think?  I would
> think that we should actually encourage Mr. Eckel to try out Ruby. We
> should welcome him to instead of hanging out a sign that says "No
> Eckel's allowed!". After all, we're the friendly language newsgroup.
> If Mr. Eckel comes here with questions I would hope that we would
> welcome him and answer them courteously (and no "see I told you so"
> type responses either).
>
> Better to win friends than to make enemies.

Phil, I think you're misreading what I wrote. If I thought that Mr Eckel
would use and like Ruby, I'd want him in our camp. But based on reading
a *lot* of his railing against Ruby in the time that I've been a
Rubyist, Ruby would make him very unhappy as a developer.

We don't need -- or want -- people who use Ruby because they have to. We
want people who use Ruby because it truly makes them happy. I've known
some developers who are happier than pigs in shit when they're
programming in C or C++. Ruby would make them very unhappy.

Why, exactly, should we encourage them to use Ruby? I'm not wanting to
make Ruby an exclusive club. I'm wanting people to find the same joy
that I find in Ruby; if they're not going to find it *in* Ruby, they
should find it in a language that makes them happier.

-austin

On 12/21/05, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

> We want people who use Ruby because it truly makes them
> happy. I've known some developers who are happier than
> pigs in sh*t when they're programming in C or C++. Ruby
> would make them very unhappy.

Does this get quote of the week?

gabriele renzi <surrender_it@-remove-yahoo.it> writes:

> actually, I still think bustrofedic, or whatever it is spelled in
> english, still is the best writing system ever. Start top left then go
> right, one line down then go left and so on

I don't think the idea is as clever as you think, for example, how can
dnA(  ?asrev-eciv ro thgir-ot-tfel morf daer ot deen uoy fi tceted uoy
how will the computer?)  Actually, I can't see of a good reason to do
           .yllaunam etirw uoy fi ssel dnah ruoy gnivom naht rehto ti

More information at:
lmth.nodehportsuob/B/lmth/nograj/rse~/gro.btac.www//:ptth

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Christian Neukirchen wrote:

> >>                  as well)
> >
> > actually, I still think bustrofedic, or whatever it is spelled in
> > english, still is the best writing system ever. Start top left then go
> > right, one line down then go left and so on
> 
> I don't think the idea is as clever as you think, for example, how can
> dnA(  ?asrev-eciv ro thgir-ot-tfel morf daer ot deen uoy fi tceted uoy
> how will the computer?)  Actually, I can't see of a good reason to do
>            .yllaunam etirw uoy fi ssel dnah ruoy gnivom naht rehto ti

The tactile writing system known as Moon was designed to work like
that.  It had guide lines like giant parentheses joining line ends
to show you the flow.  RNIB removed this feature because they wanted
it to be more like print.  Moon is more bulky than braille, but this
was one really good feature in its favour.
> 
> More information at:
> lmth.nodehportsuob/B/lmth/nograj/rse~/gro.btac.www//:ptth
> -- 
> Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen@gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org
> 
        Hugh

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:31:30AM +0900, Jeff Wood wrote:
> 
> That's all the end ... at least they are BOTH taking away from the Perl
> community & the other static/compiled languages out there ...

What's up with the "hate Perl and static languages" routine?  I like
Perl, and I still use Perl.  Both Perl and Ruby coexist quite happily in
my skillset.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:08:45AM +0900, Jim Weirich wrote:
> Mr. Eckel is a strong critic of Java, particularly in the area of 
> In short, to accuse him of being short sighted with respect to other 
> languages because he has a vested interest in teaching Java needs to 
> ignore the fact that he never been slow to critisize Java in the past 
> when he sees problems.
> 
> And finally, his blog entry is less about supporting Java, and more 
> asking the question of why Ruby over Python.

I think there's a middle ground here:

It looks to me like the way Eckel is approaching this, he sees what he
perceives to be an overreaction to Ruby, and is overreacting to it in
turn.  He doesn't seem interested in learning for himself what there is
to like about Ruby over Python, just in making a case against the
statements he's already seen about what there is to like about it.

Like I said, a little overreaction, I think.  If there are Ruby
hyperenthusiasts, he seems to be a Ruby hypoenthusiast.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 06:12:53AM +0900, Jamey Cribbs wrote:
> James Britt wrote:
> 
> >
> >Besides, we should be ranting about how Ruby is better than Lisp.
> >
> >:)
> 
> Ruby kicks Cobol's ass!

So much for controversy.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 12:18:20AM +0900, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> how will the computer?)  Actually, I can't see of a good reason to do
>            .yllaunam etirw uoy fi ssel dnah ruoy gnivom naht rehto ti

. . . and how useless is that, when pretty much all my "writing" is done
with a keyboard anyway?

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 06:17:48PM +0900, Tim Hammerquist wrote:
> 
> There are two things that I think python got absolutely *right*:
> One is Python's ternary expressions ("if 0 < x < 10:"), which
> have functional equivalents in Ruby.  The other is significant
> whitespace.

Glad ya think so.  I find it obnoxious, and it contributes to an
appearance to the source that makes my eyes bleed.  It detracts from
visual symmetry and makes everything look unfinished to me.

That's just me, though -- just like your impression that it's "right" is
just you.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

Bruce Eckel is just goodselling-books-maker rather than guru for coders.

Hal Fulton wrote on 12/20/2005 3:33 PM:

> <sigh>

> I really don't understand the point of this. If you like Python, use it.
> If you like Ruby, use it. I am in the latter category.

i usually get slammed for pointing out the following (my hatemail, and
spam always go way up)

in my opinion it seems like python people just aren't happy with: "if
you like python, use python. if you like ruby, use ruby." or "add BOTH
python and ruby in your toolbox"

i think the above is sage advice, but in my year in python land: you
used python exclusively (because it was the best). no need to use any
other language. they weren't interested comparisons. if <blank>
language had a feature that python didn't then that feature was
"useless", "implemented wrong", or "this is the way we do that in
python, it's the best way to do it."

i think the best way to compare the two languages is to learn them. i
used python for about a year, and i've used ruby now, for 2 years or so.

i came from a perl background so ruby was relatively easy to pick up.
but i also like and use tcl/tk on a regular basis. i don't use python
anymore because there is ruby

the choice for me was easy because it was so clear.

as an aside, my all time favorite feature in ruby is the threading i
don't care if it's native or not. i tend to overuse threads, if a
program can be sped up at all with threads, i use them.

Hal Fulton wrote on 12/20/2005 3:33 PM:

> As for significant whitespace -- surely it's a matter of opinion whether
> this is the "right" way or not. One can make arguments in both directions.
> I was initially drawn to the idea, but after playing with it, I found it
> had its drawbacks.

i'll say. when one space too many or too few can mean time spent
hunting it down to make a program work i think it's a serious design
flaw in a language.

near the end of my python experience i found my self using console
based editors so i could see the spacing a lot easier.

On Thursday 22 December 2005 09:03 am, tony summerfelt wrote:
> Hal Fulton wrote on 12/20/2005 3:33 PM:
> > As for significant whitespace -- surely it's a matter of
> > opinion whether this is the "right" way or not. One can make
> > arguments in both directions. I was initially drawn to the
> > idea, but after playing with it, I found it had its drawbacks.
>
> i'll say. when one space too many or too few can mean time spent
> hunting it down to make a program work i think it's a serious
> design flaw in a language.

That's why I use tabs and only tabs for indentation, in any
language. You can set Vim or enscript to make a tabstop ever 3
columns, but there's no way to mistakenly put too few or too many.

I think spaces are OK also, but when people start mixing tabs and
spaces, I just gotta scream.

SteveT

Steve Litt
http://www.troubleshooters.com
slitt@troubleshooters.com

Steve Litt wrote:
> That's why I use tabs and only tabs for indentation, in any 
> language.

Oh Lord, lets not go there... ;-)

ha +1

j.

On 12/22/05, Bob Showalter <bob_showalter@taylorwhite.com> wrote:
>
> Steve Litt wrote:
> > That's why I use tabs and only tabs for indentation, in any
> > language.
>
> Oh Lord, lets not go there... ;-)
>
>


--
"Remember. Understand. Believe. Yield! -> http://ruby-lang.org"

Jeff Wood

Chad Perrin wrote:

> > > Nikolai Weibull ha scritto:

[stuff that I havenâ??t written, and really doesnâ??t relate to what I
wrote in the first place]

Why is my name still in this?

        nikolai

Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
>
> That's just me, though -- just like your impression that it's
> "right" is just you.

Ok, to be fair, that "right" above is my opinion.

And like I said in the bit that was snipped, if more CS students
were taught to indent correctly, I probably wouldn't be so
opinionated on this matter.

Cheers!
Tim Hammerquist

Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> Jeff Wood wrote:
> > at least they are BOTH taking away from the Perl community
> > & the other static/compiled languages out there ...
>
> What's up with the "hate Perl and static languages" routine?
> I like Perl, and I still use Perl.  Both Perl and Ruby coexist
> quite happily in my skillset.

I second.  Obviously Matz liked something about Perl enough for
it to significantly influence Ruby.

The Python v. Ruby argument makes sense.  Perl only had one
serious drawback in by book (horrid OO), which was nicely fixed
by Ruby.

As I still have a lot of previous work and experience invested
in Perl, I still use it frequently; but I see no reason to
declare war on it.

Cheers,
Tim Hammerquist

On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 06:36:06AM +0900, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
> > > > Nikolai Weibull ha scritto:
> 
> [stuff that I havenâ??t written, and really doesnâ??t relate to what I
> wrote in the first place]
> 
> Why is my name still in this?
> 
>         nikolai

I hit "dd" one time too few, and an extra line was left in the email by
accident.  If you pay attention to the indention of name-cites, you may
notice that the way my previous email was structured essentially
attributes no words to you at all.  There are three previous email
authors cited, and two pieces of quoted text.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

In message <slrndqi7a5.ebp.penryu@haruko.saiyix>, Tim Hammerquist
<penryu@saiyix.ath.cx> writes
>have functional equivalents in Ruby.  The other is significant
>whitespace.

If you want to drive people away from Ruby, go with that.

Stephen

In message <Vh%pf.873$Or5.754@tornado.southeast.rr.com>, Timothy Hunter
<cyclists@nc.rr.com> writes
>Just a thought: a programming language that is free, easy to learn, 
>rewards mastery, and has flocks of eager devotees who want to share 
>their knowledge for free offers little incentive to a guy who needs to 
>earn a living writing and lecturing and teaching and consulting.

Disagree. The type of people that pay his lecturing fees will always be
willing to pay for lectures regardless of language. There are plenty of
people lecturing on the VB circuit.

If anything I'd go the opposite - it provides him with a potentially
larger army of potential attendees at such conferences, especially if
Ruby goes mainstream.

Funny, I read the article Hal referred to this morning and then found
this thread later today. I felt the article kind of didn't say much
other than "there is no reason to change to Ruby if you already know
Python".

As part of our software tool beta tests we talk with software engineers
that use a variety of languages. I was chatting with a very keen beta
tester of a Python flow tracer product and asked if he had tried Ruby as
I preferred it to Python. His answer was that he didn't have the time
(professionally) or time and energy in his private life (father,
husband, etc) to learn Ruby for fun. It would need to be for a
commercial reason and he had none. I guess many in the Python camp won't
change language unless they have a business reason to change.

Stephen

On Dec 23, 2005, at 8:32 AM, Stephen Kellett wrote:
> His answer was that he didn't have the time (professionally) or  
> time and energy in his private life (father, husband, etc) to learn  
> Ruby for fun. It would need to be for a commercial reason and he  
> had none. I guess many in the Python camp won't change language  
> unless they have a business reason to change.

At one level I understand this point of view.  But at the same time, how
difficult is it to read a book?  If your professional and personal
life is
so busy that you can't find time to read a book or to learn about a new
topic then I think your priorities need to be re-evaluated.  I'm not
saying
that learning Ruby should be on the top of everyone's todo list but I do
think it is important to regularly expose yourself to new ideas for both
your personal and professional health.


Gary Wright

In message <BF0740FD-4249-4BDE-988B-F21CFF764FD5@mac.com>,
gwtmp01@mac.com writes
>At one level I understand this point of view.  But at the same time, how
>difficult is it to read a book?

Very, if you are too tired to take it in. If you are busy with work and
have a young family I doubt it would be that easy.

>If your professional and personal  life is
>so busy that you can't find time to read a book or to learn about a new
>topic then I think your priorities need to be re-evaluated.  I'm not 
>saying

Thats an easy statement to make but it ignores each the circumstances
surrounding each person. I agree with you and I'm sure the chap I was
talking with does too, but its clear he has no business reason to go
that route - his time is more effectively spent elsewhere.

I think he'd be more interested in reading about a new technology he can
use without ditching his currently favoured language(s). Which is partly
where Mr Eckel is coming from (referring to Django rather than changing
languages and learning Rails)

Stephen

Stephen Kellett wrote:
> >topic then I think your priorities need to be re-evaluated.  I'm not
> >saying
>
> Thats an easy statement to make but it ignores each the circumstances
> surrounding each person. I agree with you and I'm sure the chap I was
> talking with does too, but its clear he has no business reason to go
> that route - his time is more effectively spent elsewhere.

Exactly! His time is more effectively spent elsewhere.

When somethings demonstrably >10x "better" we need to learn and change,
otherwise it's probably more effective to build on existing expertise.

On Friday 23 December 2005 11:57, Stephen Kellett wrote:
> In message <BF0740FD-4249-4BDE-988B-F21CFF764FD5@mac.com>,
> gwtmp01@mac.com writes
>
> >At one level I understand this point of view.  But at the same time, how
> >difficult is it to read a book?
>
> Very, if you are too tired to take it in. If you are busy with work and
> have a young family I doubt it would be that easy.

And honestly, if the guy doesn't want to learn Ruby, that's fine, I 
certainly
don't want to learn Python, but I don't claim that I've tried either.

On 12/23/05, Kevin Brown <blargity@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And honestly, if the guy doesn't want to learn Ruby, that's fine, I certainly
> don't want to learn Python, but I don't claim that I've tried either.

Yeah that is the thing: if you are happy with what you have and trying
something new doesn't give you some measurable benefit, then don't
worry about it. I really can't begrudge Bruce Eckel or others with
this kind of opinion.

But still, I do agree with the Pragmatic Programmer advice of trying a
new language each year to keep your mind fresh and to give you new
ideas on how to use your favorite or most-used language in better
ways. Maybe for Pythonistas the differences in Ruby aren't enough to
warrant them learning it. Same with us Rubyists when it comes to
learning Python.

Though I have done some Python and the significant whitespace and
"tacked-on" feeling of object-orientation left a bad taste in my
mouth. For me, Ruby fits better. For others, Python is a better fit,
and that is fine.

Ryan

On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Stephen Kellett wrote:
> In message <BF0740FD-4249-4BDE-988B-F21CFF764FD5@mac.com>,  
> gwtmp01@mac.com writes
>> At one level I understand this point of view.  But at the same  
>> time, how
>> difficult is it to read a book?
>
> Very, if you are too tired to take it in. If you are busy with work  
> and have a young family I doubt it would be that easy.

It really scares me to hear that people don't have time to read.
Even 10 minutes in bed before you nod off is better than nothing.
Note, I didn't say that *Ruby* should be at the top of your list but
I really do think it is important to find time to read.

I wasn't trying trying to make a point about Ruby but instead just
a general point about finding time to read in order to know what
is going on in your industry, your community, and the world.

One of the questions I ask in interviews is what sort of professional
development the applicant has pursued.  Web sites they read, magazines
they follow, books they learned from and so on.  If I get a blank
stare or something about being too busy for that....

Gary Wright

On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 05:04:41AM +0900, gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
> 
> It really scares me to hear that people don't have time to read.
> Even 10 minutes in bed before you nod off is better than nothing.
> Note, I didn't say that *Ruby* should be at the top of your list but
> I really do think it is important to find time to read.

I couldn't agree more.

Still, sometimes I go three days without reading anything.  I make up
for it on the days I read for several hours.  It probably helps that I
don't spend any of my free time doing things like watching football or
Survivor, though.


> 
> One of the questions I ask in interviews is what sort of professional
> development the applicant has pursued.  Web sites they read, magazines
> they follow, books they learned from and so on.  If I get a blank
> stare or something about being too busy for that....

Careful who you ask that of.  Give me a chance to hold forth on a
subject like that, and you might not be able to shut me up.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
> It really scares me to hear that people don't have time to read.
> they follow, books they learned from and so on.  If I get a blank
> stare or something about being too busy for that....
>
> Gary Wright

Rather than yet more technical knowledge, the area that frequently
needs improvement is skill in communicating and working with others -
so maybe if they read "How the way we talk can change the way we work"
or "Difficult Conversations: How to discuss what matters most" or
"One-to-One in the Workplace"

Isaac,

On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 07:47 +0900, Isaac Gouy wrote:

> Rather than yet more technical knowledge, the area that frequently
> needs improvement is skill in communicating and working with others -
> so maybe if they read "How the way we talk can change the way we work"
> or "Difficult Conversations: How to discuss what matters most" or
> "One-to-One in the Workplace"


Great stuff! - I will get these, I think they will be very useful.

The things you find out about on a programming list . .

Regards,

Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades

Pricom Pty Limited  (ACN 003 252 275  ABN 91 003 252 275)
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW      2001
Australia
Mobile:  +61:(0)411-185-652
Fax:     +61:(0)2-8221-9599
E-mail:  phil@pricom.com.au

Stephen Kellett <snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Tim Hammerquist <penryu@saiyix.ath.cx> writes
> > have functional equivalents in Ruby.  The other is
> > significant whitespace.
>
> If you want to drive people away from Ruby, go with that.

That wasn't evangelism. Just my opinion.  That my opinion
doesn't match the Ruby parser verbatim shouldn't invalidate it.

Tim Hammerquist

On 12/23/05, gwtmp01@mac.com <gwtmp01@mac.com> wrote:
> difficult is it to read a book?  If your professional and personal
> life is
> so busy that you can't find time to read a book or to learn about a new
> topic then I think your priorities need to be re-evaluated.  I'm not
> saying
> that learning Ruby should be on the top of everyone's todo list but I do
> think it is important to regularly expose yourself to new ideas for both
> your personal and professional health.
>
>
> Gary Wright



   Listen, people have lives outside of programming.  And not everybody 
is
an emotional fanboy with the latest perceived toy.   There was no 
compelling
reason to learn Ruby.

On Dec 26, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Chris Ferrell wrote:
> Listen, people have lives outside of programming.  And not  
> everybody is
> an emotional fanboy with the latest perceived toy.   There was no  
> compelling
> reason to learn Ruby.

I was responding to the idea that the only reason to read or learn
about something new was for an immediate 'commercial reason'.  My point
was not that Ruby had to be that new thing but that discovering what is
commercially relevant does actually require reading and learning about
things outside of your immediate situation.  As an employer, I
encouraged
that sort of thing within the context of the job and not as some sort of
extra-credit homework.

Clearly I'm opining from a distance without any real knowledge of the
*specific* situation but it was the *general* sentiment that I was
responding
to.


Gary Wright