On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 04:32:49 +0900
“Wilson B.” [email protected] wrote:
jarring to the reader. Why is the database connection description file
in YAML and not in “a Ruby”?
DHH mentioned at Canada on Rails (if I recall) that having
database.yml instead of database.rb was basically a beginner’s
mistake, and that distant-future plans include turning that into a
Ruby script.
So, at least the rails core team agrees with you. Heh.
Oh great, an ever modifiable ruby DSL that we’ll never be able to write
a nice configuration tool against. What happened to embrace the
constraint?
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:16:04 +0900
Devin M. [email protected] wrote:
Zed A. Shaw wrote:
> > Oh great, an ever modifiable ruby DSL that we'll never be able to
> > write a nice configuration tool against. What happened to embrace
> > the constraint?
Man, fame has made you mean…
Is that better? 
In article [email protected],
Martin C. [email protected] wrote:
The K&R C specification is tiny. I wouldn’t want to write a parser
for a language spec of the magnitude of C++ or Perl 6 in C.
Others would though, and those people are bonkers.
I’ve heard rumors of a Fortran compiler written in troff macros. Now
that is bonkers…
Tim S. wrote:
In article [email protected],
Martin C. [email protected] wrote:
The K&R C specification is tiny. I wouldn’t want to write a parser
for a language spec of the magnitude of C++ or Perl 6 in C.
Others would though, and those people are bonkers.
I’ve heard rumors of a Fortran compiler written in troff macros. Now
that is bonkers…
I hadn’t heard that one. However, “f2c” and “p2c” (FORTRAN to C and
Pascal to C translators) were quite popular at one time before the good
GNUs started to spread.
Tim S. [email protected] writes:
In article [email protected],
Martin C. [email protected] wrote:
The K&R C specification is tiny. I wouldn’t want to write a parser
for a language spec of the magnitude of C++ or Perl 6 in C.
Others would though, and those people are bonkers.
I’ve heard rumors of a Fortran compiler written in troff macros. Now
that is bonkers…
Not worse than the other way round…
On 10/2/06, Robert D. [email protected] wrote:
that is bonkers…
–
–Tim S.
Webserver in sed, my evidence is as solid as yours BTW, I have heard 
http://sed.sourceforge.net/local/scripts/sedhttpd.sed.html
On 10/2/06, Tim S. [email protected] wrote:
–
–Tim S.
Webserver in sed, my evidence is as solid as yours BTW, I have heard
Robert
–
Deux choses sont infinies : l’univers et la bêtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l’univers, je n’en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.
Others would though, and those people are bonkers.
I’ve heard rumors of a Fortran compiler written in troff macros. Now
that is bonkers…
I once created an operating system entirely out of the moans of geese.
Martin
On 10/2/06, Wilson B. [email protected] wrote:
Colorized sedhttpd.sed
Great, when I looked at it I almost thaught, well why the heck would
someone
use anything else than sed.
Thx for the link.
Robert
“Robert D.” [email protected] writes:
On 10/2/06, Wilson B. [email protected] wrote:
Colorized sedhttpd.sed
Great, when I looked at it I almost thaught, well why the heck would someone
use anything else than sed.
I prefer Postscript.
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/pshttpd/
On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Robert D. wrote:
On 10/2/06, Wilson B. [email protected] wrote:
Colorized sedhttpd.sed
Great, when I looked at it I almost thaught, well why the heck
would someone
use anything else than sed.
It’s just a CGI, of course, rather than an actual httpd replacement,
but quite elegant nonetheless.
I’d never seen sed.sourceforge.net. It’s kind of surreal. My first
response was, this is what Larry Wall (mercifully) saved us from.
Tom
The observation that C++ is a destructor is inaccurate. C++ is THE
destructor. (As in, “Are you the gatekeeper?”)
I think they used YAML for the DB config in Rails because it was easy
to do and libraries already existed. I’m not surprised to hear that
they might make it all Ruby, although I don’t actually remember
hearing that.
I think the statements sourcing Paul Graham in the Scheme school of
Lisp fanatics is probably inaccurate. He wrote a book on Common Lisp,
and most of the examples in his other Lisp book are in Common Lisp as
well, with only a few in Scheme.
Well, considering that Paul Graham is a Lispnik, I think we can infer
what his definitions of “powerful” and “succinct” in a programming
language are. What would be interesting to me would be where he stands
on the great “Common Lisp vs. Scheme” divide. Or what he thinks of
Forth, the “other succinct and powerful language.”
Perhaps more to the point would be a comparison of Lisp, Scheme and Ruby
as hosts for internal domain-specific languages. Didn’t somebody do that
already?
(Some fun w/ Lisp and Ruby: Ruby Quiz - Lisp Game (#49))
I once had this little conversation with a programmer tha I respect a
lot:
He: “Does Ruby have closures?”
Me: “Yes”
He: “Does Ruby have continuations?”
Me: “Yes”
He: “So it’s basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax.”
I had no reply.
Bye,
Kero.
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 04:50:12 +0900
Kero [email protected] wrote:
(Some fun w/ Lisp and Ruby: Ruby Quiz - Lisp Game (#49))
I once had this little conversation with a programmer tha I respect a lot:
He: “Does Ruby have closures?”
Me: “Yes”
He: “Does Ruby have continuations?”
Me: “Yes”
He: “So it’s basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax.”
I had no reply.
Oh, that’s easy:
"Any language that ends nearly every function definition with the line:
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
does NOT win the International Code Beauty Award."
On 06-10-02, at 15:57, Robert D. wrote:
Perhaps more to the point would be a comparison of Lisp, Scheme
Me: “Yes”
He: “Does Ruby have continuations?”
Me: “Yes”
He: “So it’s basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax.”
Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder
You could have stopped after the first two words:
Beauty lies.
On 10/2/06, Kero [email protected] wrote:
(Some fun w/ Lisp and Ruby: Ruby Quiz - Lisp Game (#49))
I once had this little conversation with a programmer tha I respect a lot:
He: “Does Ruby have closures?”
Me: “Yes”
He: “Does Ruby have continuations?”
Me: “Yes”
He: “So it’s basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax.”
Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder
I had no reply.
OO?
Bye,
Kero.
Robert
–
Deux choses sont infinies : l’univers et la bêtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l’univers, je n’en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.
On 10/1/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:
C++ is a destructor.
Some years ago at OOPSLA, I was hanging out in the hotel lobby, when I
saw my old buddy Kent Beck talking with a group of folks, some I or
whom knew and others I didn’t.
I walked up to say hi, just as someone in the group said that he’d
heard a great joke:
Q: “Why doesn’t C++ have garbage collection?”
A; “Because there would be nothing left.”
To which Kent said. “Rick invented that joke!, at OOPSLA last year.”
Which, indeed I had.
It was amazing to me that the joke took exactly one year to come full
circle.
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:55:44AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Ah, but isn’t PostScript a dialect of Forth?
Nah, but like all concatenative languages–Joy, for instance–it derives
some amount of inspiration from it.