What's up with symbols?


#1

Hello fellows!

I’m trying to understand symbols. Not what they are, but rather why Ruby
has them. They are neat and I use them, but effectively you end up with
the same thing using plain strings, right? So why extend the language? I
get the feeling I’m missing a big point so please help me out by
pointing it out to me.

Best regards

Hans-Eric Grönlund


#2

On Apr 3, 2006, at 3:06 PM, Hans-Eric Grönlund wrote:

I’m trying to understand symbols. Not what they are, but rather why
Ruby
has them. They are neat and I use them, but effectively you end up
with
the same thing using plain strings, right? So why extend the
language? I
get the feeling I’m missing a big point so please help me out by
pointing it out to me.

Hi,

See:

SymbolsAreNotImmutableStrings.red
[2]: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/search?
group=comp.lang.ruby&q=symbols&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group

– Daniel


#3

Hans-Eric Grönlund wrote:

Hello fellows!

I’m trying to understand symbols. Not what they are, but rather why Ruby
has them. They are neat and I use them, but effectively you end up with
the same thing using plain strings, right?

No. There was a lengthy thread about Symbols here on ruby-talk not too
long ago, so perhaps you’ll want to search the archives.

So why extend the language? I
get the feeling I’m missing a big point so please help me out by
pointing it out to me.

See also

http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2005/12/symbols_strings_methods_and_va.html


James B.

“A language that doesn’t affect the way you think about programming is
not worth knowing.”

  • A. Perlis

#4

Daniel H. wrote:

– Daniel
Is there somewhere besides the newsgroup for this?