In my opinion that is a a lie perpetuated by the ruby community.
I think its more of a matter of taste. One man’s clean code is another
man’s Perl.
In my opinion, ruby syntax is ugly.
Degustibus non est disputandum.
But even if you think the syntax is clean, ruby is all about cramming 4 or 5 function calls
into one line and sprinkling some regex’s in for spice, which is creates an
indecipherable mess.
While in Ruby you certainly can cram as many function calls as you can
tolerate on a line,
and sprinkle in as many regex’s as you’d like, that’s not what Ruby is
all about.
I’ve never encountered any language that is coded so poorly by its community. Most of the
code I see posted is very hard to decipher, but if you say perl is worse, I’ll believe you.
Ruby can be hard to decipher coming from many other popular languages,
as many use
very similar (to each other) C-like syntax, and Ruby is both different
in important ways and
freer (optional parens, for instance) than most C-like languages. This
isn’t an issue of hygiene
(“clean” code) so much as it is one of familiar syntax. TMTOWTDI also
means that different
programmer’s will express things in the ways most natural to them,
which may not be the
most natural to other readers.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Christopher D. [email protected]
wrote:
most natural to other readers.
One thing that was hard for me to grasp at first, but now love, is
that Ruby sort of gives you a sense of thinking of an object as a
living thing with it’s own personality, including syntax, or “birth”
of the object, if you will. It makes it easy to do the “my object can
interact with yours as long as we can handshake” OO.
Now, for maintenance, I’ve found that unless the code is intentionally
obfuscated, it’s not that hard to go over it regardless of style. Of
course, it’s nice to have conventions to keep everyone working on a
project mildly in check.
On Mar 28, 2008, at 11:40 PM, Christopher D. wrote:
Degustibus non est disputandum.
Extra points for translation and source of quote
De gustibus non disputandum est.
The reordering of the words is just reflecting my taste, that’s what’s
cool in Latin, you can use prefix or sufffix method calls.
“One can not argue about matters of taste” I prefer however “It is
futile to argue about matters of taste” but I always got bad marks in
Latin.
I believe it is not a quote but a proverb ( which might come from a
quote of course), but well I have no idea, I claim only half of the
point.
But you praise it as beauty, art language…etc, however, why don’t you
give some examples to prove those opinion.
Perhaps the onus is now on you to try it and experience these things
for yourself.
Programming is not art in the same way that painting is–you don’t
wander down a hall and look at things on the wall. Programming is art
in the sense of craft–you come to appreciate it through doing it.
Thank everybody, indeed!
I always believe Ruby is a good programming language.
But you praise it as beauty, art language…etc, however, why don’t you
give some examples to prove those opinion.
in the sense of craft–you come to appreciate it through doing it.
Or to extend the analogy, be like the art students I always saw in
museums. Whenever I got the opportunity to roam the halls of the
Louvre or the Prado, I inevitably saw students with easels, not just
looking at the works, but trying to learn from them by
“reimplementing” them in their own way.
wander down a hall and look at things on the wall. Programming is art
in the sense of craft–you come to appreciate it through doing it.
Or to extend the analogy, be like the art students I always saw in
museums. Whenever I got the opportunity to roam the halls of the
Louvre or the Prado, I inevitably saw students with easels, not just
looking at the works, but trying to learn from them by
“reimplementing” them in their own way.
Be careful, though, or you’ll get accused of “re-inventing the wheel” I’ve always thought that it’s fine, and often fun, to write
programs that do what others already do. I think of it as more like
being a wheelwright than a re-inventor of the wheel.
Thank everybody, indeed!
I always believe Ruby is a good programming language.
But you praise it as beauty, art language…etc, however, why don’t you
give some examples to prove those opinion.
. a really nice piece of code by michael fellinger
this dsl configures a multi-mode command line program including
sharing of options across sibling modes, casting/parsing of switches,
and automaticaly generates usage globally and per mode
…
Or to extend the analogy, be like the art students I always saw in
museums. Whenever I got the opportunity to roam the halls of the
Louvre or the Prado, I inevitably saw students with easels, not just
looking at the works, but trying to learn from them by
“reimplementing” them in their own way.
They let you bring an easel and paint into the Louvre and just start
painting? Cool.
I’m making a essay about Ruby on Rails.
You can give me some advices how to do it better.
I wrote some topics in Rails but it don’t long enough(~50 pages Doc) and
my teacher require essay don’t concern about code much.
I wrote about history, MVC, Ruby, Relatation Database,Active
Record,Action Pack… Now, what should I write more?
Thanks
