other Ruby programmers. Having said that, I would guess that any
most of us use #select, #map, blocks and literal regular expressions
in almost every program we write. I certainly do.
At the same time, though, I’d say that object orientation per se
doesn’t depend on polymorphism and inheritance. To me it’s the
convergence back onto the sending-msgs-to-objects paradigm that’s at
the heart of it (though I don’t put that forth as a CS-ly correct
characterization, just my sense of it).
I like to think of Ruby as being the English of programming languages.
It’s got a large and flexible vocabulary that makes it very powerful
to work with, but unlike Perl or Lisp or C it’s also a very easy
language to get to grips with.
I’m particularly keen on the loose and pragmatic approach to OO. Being
able to open classes and objects at will makes it very easy to
specialise them for a specific project. And as for inheritance
hierarchies, there’s much less pressure to build these rigid and
gargantuan frameworks than in certain mainstream languages.
As for the functional aspect, I tend to even forget I’m using a
functional style because message sending is so pervasive that chaining
higher-order functions is the obvious way to solve many problems.
I like to think of Ruby as being the English of programming languages. It’s
got a large and flexible vocabulary that makes it very powerful to work with,
but unlike Perl or Lisp or C it’s also a very easy language to get to grips
with.
English does not borrow from other languages. English follows other
languages into dark alleys, knocks them over, and rifles through their
pockets for loose vocabulary.
– Matt
It’s not what I know that counts.
It’s what I can remember in time to use.
I like to think of Ruby as being the English of programming languages. It’s
got a large and flexible vocabulary that makes it very powerful to work
with, but unlike Perl or Lisp or C it’s also a very easy language to get to
grips with.
English does not borrow from other languages. English follows other
languages into dark alleys, knocks them over, and rifles through their
pockets for loose vocabulary.
Actually, I’d say quite the opposite, English vocabulary is the result
of a
long history of the English language being raped by the Languages of
whatever happened to be the latest invaders. Those words were injected
into
the language rather than being pick-pocketed.
– Matt
It’s not what I know that counts.
It’s what I can remember in time to use.
English, unlike other languages, is very consistent and
straightforward. For example, the plural of boot is boots and the
plural of foot is foots. Ok. Maybe I need a better example.
Actually, I’d say quite the opposite, English vocabulary is the
result of a
long history of the English language being raped by the Languages of
whatever happened to be the latest invaders. Those words were
injected into
the language rather than being pick-pocketed.
I’d say that English is more like the Borg. Resistance is futile.
You will be assimilated.
English does not borrow from other languages. English follows other
languages into dark alleys, knocks them over, and rifles through
their pockets for loose vocabulary.
English, unlike other languages, is very consistent and
straightforward. For example, the plural of boot is boots and the
plural of foot is foots. Ok. Maybe I need a better example.
“Okay” is a real word. “OK” is an historical bacronym. (The published
dictionaries have this one wrong.) Okay means “emphatic yes” in Wolof,
one of
the languages English… knocked over. “Banana” and “hippie” come from
the same
source…
languages into dark alleys, knocks them over, and rifles through
1100
I propose that we allow ‘foots’. to be a subclass of foot - for those of
us who secretly wish English had the lucidity of Spanish, or, if we dare
to dream, Ruby…
t.
–
Tom C., MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< [email protected] >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
