Bruce Eckel and Ruby


#1

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


#2

On 12/20/05, Hal F. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

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


#3

James B. wrote:

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

:slight_smile:

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.


#4

Hal F. wrote:

Give it a rest, people.

Amen.

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

:slight_smile:

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


#5

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


#6

Ryan L. 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.


#7

On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:12 PM, Timothy H. 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 G. II


#8

Jamey C. wrote:

James B. wrote:

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

:slight_smile:

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 :slight_smile:


#9

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 W.


#10

Timothy H. 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 W.


#11

On 20/12/05, Hal F. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

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


#12

On 20/12/05, Robert H. removed_email_address@domain.invalid 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


#13

Hal F. 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)

#14

Nikolai W. 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


#15

Jim W. 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.


#16

On 20/12/05, Bob H. removed_email_address@domain.invalid 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


#17

On Dec 20, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Timothy H. 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 H. – blogs at http://www.recursive.ca/hutch/
Recursive Design Inc. – http://www.recursive.ca/
Raconteur – http://www.raconteur.info/


#18

Robert H. 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


#19

Timothy H. wrote:

Jim W. 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 W.


#20

Jim W. 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 :slight_smile: 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.