Ruby and boogers

Hi

Found a commercial where Java Duke is contemplating about Ruby while
picking his nose and eating boogers:
http://www.zeroturnaround.com/a-javarebel-story/

Mark

On 12/6/07, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:

Hi

Found a commercial where Java Duke is contemplating about Ruby while
picking his nose and eating boogers: http://www.zeroturnaround.com/a-javarebel-story/

Mark

Yeah but he still doesn’t get it.

  1. “Even RUBY looks attractive.”
  2. The product being advertised might help with his write bug, test,
    find bug cycle time, but he’s still going to get carpal tunnel from
    all that extra typing!


Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

On Dec 6, 2007 4:13 PM, Rick DeNatale [email protected] wrote:

  1. “Even RUBY looks attractive.”
  2. The product being advertised might help with his write bug, test,
    find bug cycle time, but he’s still going to get carpal tunnel from
    all that extra typing!

Right. Perhaps he’ll learn about duck typing someday :wink:

On 2007-12-07 01:52 +0900 (Fri), Jano S. wrote:

[Java blah blah blah]

Right. Perhaps he’ll learn about duck typing someday :wink:

Static typing is infinitely superior to dynamic typing when done
properly. Just remember, Java’s failure here is that it does it so
badly.

As far as folks using Java goes: I write software for a living. The more
of my competition use Java, the better for me.

cjs

On Dec 6, 2007 5:52 PM, Jano S. [email protected] wrote:

Yeah but he still doesn’t get it.

  1. “Even RUBY looks attractive.”
  2. The product being advertised might help with his write bug, test,
    find bug cycle time, but he’s still going to get carpal tunnel from
    all that extra typing!

Right. Perhaps he’ll learn about duck typing someday :wink:
One should in any case duck when typing such things :wink:
Robert

http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/


All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,
it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Schopenhauer (attr.)

On Dec 8, 2007 10:29 AM, Curt S. [email protected] wrote:

On 2007-12-07 01:52 +0900 (Fri), Jano S. wrote:

[Java blah blah blah]

Right. Perhaps he’ll learn about duck typing someday :wink:

Static typing is infinitely superior to dynamic typing when done
properly. Just remember, Java’s failure here is that it does it so
badly.

What is an implementation of static typing that you would consider
done right then? A language that makes use of something like the
Hindley-Milner type inference algorithm so that types don’t usually
need to be explicitly declared? Ocaml or Haskell?

Frankly, I’m of the belief that both static and dynamic typing have
their place in the grand scheme of things.

As far as folks using Java goes: I write software for a living. The more
of my competition use Java, the better for me.

A sentiment that I think no one here would disagree with.

Static typing is infinitely superior to dynamic typing when done
properly. Just remember, Java’s failure here is that it does it so
badly.

Dynamic typing is infinitely superior to static typing when done
properly.
Just remember, ruby’s success is because it does not enforce its
paradigm onto your brain.

On Dec 8, 2007 3:29 AM, Curt S. [email protected] wrote:

On 2007-12-07 01:52 +0900 (Fri), Jano S. wrote:

[Java blah blah blah]

Right. Perhaps he’ll learn about duck typing someday :wink:

Static typing is infinitely superior
of course Curt, of course, infinitely, maybe you can give us some data
for your bold (and that’s a, euphemism :wink: statement.
to dynamic typing when done
properly. Just remember, Java’s failure here is that it does it so
badly.

As far as folks using Java goes: I write software for a living. The more
of my competition use Java, the better for me.
That however sounds true to me.
R.

http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/


All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,
it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Schopenhauer (attr.)

On 2007-12-10 12:11 +0900 (Mon), Dido S. wrote:

What is an implementation of static typing that you would consider
done right then? A language that makes use of something like the
Hindley-Milner type inference algorithm so that types don’t usually
need to be explicitly declared? Ocaml or Haskell?

Yes. I’m quite fond of Haskell.

Type classes in particular are wonderful; they get rid of that problem
in Ruby where you’re always wondering which particular equality and
comparison methods you should be implementing, and which ones your
superclass can safely provide for you.

It’s very comforting to write a piece of code and know that, due to the
compiler’s type checking, it’s impossible for someone (usually me, down
the road) to misuse it.

cjs

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs