Preach on about this bullshit when Ruby isn’t primarily used for web
applications and when Ruby allows my system to reclaim memory, until
then lets leave the symbol argument bullshit out of this. Even if
they are constants they can lead to trouble if you just blindly state
they are better without explaining the dangers in a web application,
or people will repeat history, history people like me thought was
already common knowledge.
well it’d be interesting to know why you’re frustrated out of Symbol
concepts of Ruby ?
I didn’t say symbols are better than strings, in fact I asked that it’s
important to know for a developer that why and where they can be used!
when did I say Ruby is best/primary used for web ? I use it in chip
programming and it’s been great so far
It’s an individual’s choice to select a language/framework to achieve
the
solution to a problem, the main aim is to resolve a problem, now once
decided to go with a language, one hast to know the limits and pros and
cons of that language which certainly are there the way it’s creators
have
made it to.
If someone doesn’t know how the class is being loaded once in memory
clearly means there is huge lack of knowledge about how memory mappings
going on there. And getting insights of symbols is a great way to get to
know more about this.
regards,
Sur
crimson9.com
@sur - will check as you said.
@jordan - not understood your reply…
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Sur [email protected] wrote:
well it’d be interesting to know why you’re frustrated out of Symbol
concepts of Ruby ?
It’s hard to explain, fight the good fight long enough you might see
it or you might not, I won’t force my views on you.
I didn’t say symbols are better than strings, in fact I asked that it’s
important to know for a developer that why and where they can be used!
It was implied (to me.)
It’s an individual’s choice to select a language/framework to achieve the
solution to a problem, the main aim is to resolve a problem, now once
decided to go with a language, one hast to know the limits and pros and cons
of that language which certainly are there the way it’s creators have made
it to.
That’s a fallacy as most of the time people do not have this sort of
flexibility, just because you hear all about it on Twitter and from
CTO’s and startup’s does not mean this is the case most of the time,
if it was then none of us would still be on Rails 2.3 with Ruby 1.8.
While this is not me, I know more developers who get told what they
are going to use then telling what they would like to use and then
using it.
If someone doesn’t know how the class is being loaded once in memory clearly
means there is huge lack of knowledge about how memory mappings going on
there. And getting insights of symbols is a great way to get to know more
about this.
I think this leaves a lot to be explained because you explicitly
mention classes and I do believe this “loaded once in memory” only
applies to the singleton and since classes are meant to be initialized
there could remain many copies of that object with their own state at
the end of the day. I could be wrong though.
On Nov 5, 2013, at 12:20 AM, Jordon B. [email protected] wrote:
sym_a = :some_symbol
already common knowledge.
Wow, is this response ever out of context. The example Sur supplied had
to do with how code is stored in memory, IN RESPONSE TO the question of
whether code is in memory or not (see “caching”).