Forum: Ruby the funniest thing ever

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Cb48ca5059faf7409a5ab3745a964696?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2007-02-10 07:13
(Received via mailing list)
this was so dang funny i had to share it


   C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.

     -- off smalltalk.org

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/s...


i'm still laughing...

-a
F3b02532d4cb4855881935c002389213?d=identicon&s=25 Morton Goldberg (Guest)
on 2007-02-10 08:16
(Received via mailing list)
On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:13 AM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

>
>
> i'm still laughing...


That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I think
the article is well worth reading. Some of the other quotes appearing
there were almost a good as the one you picked. This one really got
my attention:

    C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it
harder, but
    when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

       -- Bjarne Stroustrup

It's hard to believe that comes from Bjarne Stroustrup.

Regards, Morton
1fba4539b6cafe2e60a2916fa184fc2f?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2007-02-10 13:01
(Received via mailing list)
Hi --

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

>
> i'm still laughing...

If it walks like an octopus....

:-)


David
E0d864d9677f3c1482a20152b7cac0e2?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Klemme (Guest)
on 2007-02-11 00:51
(Received via mailing list)
On 10.02.2007 07:13, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>
> this was so dang funny i had to share it
>
>
>   C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
>
>     -- off smalltalk.org
>
> 
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/s...

Ara, thank you for sharing this - not only because of the funny quotes
but also because of the lot of good brainfood!

Kind regards

  robert
235c58ad566abb4c7979bc7033e9882c?d=identicon&s=25 David Morton (dgm)
on 2007-02-12 18:29
(Received via mailing list)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Morton Goldberg wrote:

> On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:13 AM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/
>> scalable_computer_programming_languages.html
>
>
> That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I
> think the article is well worth reading.

I have to disagree with the paper a bit.  It seems that the author is
evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations...
typical for academia.

If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod_ocaml for apache?  are
there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available?   Is there a a nice
framework like Rails to build with?  (just picking on it because the
author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML)

The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language
that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that).

More importantly, the scalability of a language depends more on the
programmer than the language.   I've seen scalable and brittle code
in almost all of those languages.

David Morton
Maia Mailguard http://www.maiamailguard.com
mortonda@dgrmm.net



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF0KPiUy30ODPkzl0RAvYrAKCBSqrYh0YIkZLYPCa00NOEDhh5OgCfUeZ0
PFAeCdEAfhX4orS5bCAstzk=
=ZLo1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
18d3c84ca5a017fe3e96490afaea28aa?d=identicon&s=25 Richard Conroy (Guest)
on 2007-02-12 20:00
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/12/07, David Morton <mortonda@dgrmm.net> wrote:
> author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML)
OCaml gets a lot of attention mostly as a source of ideas for
language designers, who are designing other languages, not
OCaml.

It has some fantastic features at the language
design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
to speak of. The most sophisticated thing you can do with the
standard distro is read a file.

It *does* have a way of binding to C code. If it exists in C, you can
use it and that's its hand-wavey excuse for not having any APIs.

> The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language
> that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that).

If anything is going to happen with OCaml, it will happen at the
heavy-duty OSS level (like kernel writers). Its getting a lot of
attention from
the traditionally C-only crew.

Its feature set is extremely impressive though, if you are comfortable
at
working in C, it would probably be an interesting language to learn.

Currently its use in practical concerns is almost zero without it
though.
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-12 20:12
(Received via mailing list)
Richard Conroy wrote:
>> framework like Rails to build with?  (just picking on it because the
>
>
> Its feature set is extremely impressive though, if you are comfortable at
> working in C, it would probably be an interesting language to learn.
>
> Currently its use in practical concerns is almost zero without it though.
>
>
Well ... the folks at INRIA have done some interesting things with it in
their "Coq" proof assistant, including some proofs of program
correctness. I've installed Coq on my machine and plan to play around a
bit with that. If you can prove an OCaml program correct more easily
than you can prove a Ruby program correct **for practical sized
programs**, I'd say it's worth looking at.

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
7b4707f974af261f71943e1f2046c9ee?d=identicon&s=25 SonOfLilit (Guest)
on 2007-02-12 21:59
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/12/07, David Morton <mortonda@dgrmm.net> wrote:
> there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available?   Is there a a nice
> framework like Rails to build with?  (just picking on it because the
> author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML)
>
> The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language
> that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that).
>
> More importantly, the scalability of a language depends more on the
> programmer than the language.   I've seen scalable and brittle code
> in almost all of those languages.


His only point is that there is correlation between scalability and
applicability of a language.

The rest is evaluation of scalability of different languages.

Does the lack of a mod_ocaml make it less sacalable? No. It makes it
more
applicable. Which isn't the same.

Does the hampered (is that a word?) scalability of C++ make it less
applicable? IMHO, it does.

The scalability of a language isn't dependent on the programmer. The
scalability of a language is the inverse of how much the language gets
in
the way of writing scalable code (I think it's more fitting than "how
much
the language helps the programmers write scalable code", though that can
be
used too if we talk paths of least resistance).

Aur Saraf

Just my NIS.05
Cb48ca5059faf7409a5ab3745a964696?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2007-02-12 22:20
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, SonOfLilit wrote:

>> If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod_ocaml for apache?  are
>
>
> His only point is that there is correlation between scalability and
> applicability of a language.
>
> The rest is evaluation of scalability of different languages.
>
> Does the lack of a mod_ocaml make it less sacalable? No. It makes it more
> applicable. Which isn't the same.

especially since mod_ocaml is right here

   http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/hump.en.cgi?contrib=281

along with smtp, pop, net, cgi, etc

   http://ocamlnet.sourceforge.net/manual-2.2/

fyi and very OT.

-a
163755a5d3a5c57bd79c4f41bdda7a22?d=identicon&s=25 Clifford Heath (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 11:15
(Received via mailing list)
Richard Conroy wrote:
> It has some fantastic features at the language
> design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
> to speak of.

That's funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains
one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages. If the base
language package contains nearly nothing, *that's an advantage*.

Clifford Heath.
7b4707f974af261f71943e1f2046c9ee?d=identicon&s=25 SonOfLilit (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 11:23
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/13/07, Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> wrote:
>
> Richard Conroy wrote:
> > It has some fantastic features at the language
> > design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
> > to speak of.
>
> That's funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains
> one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages. If the base
> language package contains nearly nothing, *that's an advantage*.


Ruby taught me that that is SO WRONG.

I install a compiler/interpreter and I want to DEVELOP THINGS.

Having a distribution with nearly nothing is OK, but the standard should
be
as full of functionality as possible. That also establishes standards
and
saves hackers who want to hack on a project in the language from the
uncomfortable experience of having to install a googol libraries.

Aur Saraf
E7fe24cfaaf8af56ae28f63c81363172?d=identicon&s=25 Jimmy Kofler (koflerjim)
on 2007-02-13 11:43
Maybe some projects such as http://www.haxe.org or
http://www.ocsigen.org should have been mentioned in the article.
7b4707f974af261f71943e1f2046c9ee?d=identicon&s=25 SonOfLilit (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 11:49
(Received via mailing list)
Sorry if I am wrong, but did those projects exist in 2001?
18d3c84ca5a017fe3e96490afaea28aa?d=identicon&s=25 Richard Conroy (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 12:03
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/13/07, Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> wrote:
> Richard Conroy wrote:
> > It has some fantastic features at the language
> > design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
> > to speak of.
>
> That's funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains
> one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages.

I didn't get enough time to itemise the OCaml library space. Apologies
if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling
and chasing resources and didn't find anything, and no real links from
the main page or tutorials. I got the impression that Caml development
basically meant binding to C libraries.

Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml? Private e-mail it if you
think
this thread has gone too OT. I am very interested. A healthy library
ecology raises OCaml from something to keep an eye on, to immediate
attention.

> If the base
> language package contains nearly nothing, *that's an advantage*.

Agreed. But if I didn't make it clear, my main concern was the
availability
of libraries for common development tasks, like database development,
network comms protocols (particularly secure ones). etc.

Yeah, this is getting more than a bit OT, but (O)Caml *is* interesting.
E7fe24cfaaf8af56ae28f63c81363172?d=identicon&s=25 Jimmy Kofler (koflerjim)
on 2007-02-13 12:06
> SonOfLilit wrote:
> Sorry if I am wrong, but did those projects exist in 2001?

The web site/article has been updated just recently, i. e. "Last updated
November 17, 2006".
Ae16cb4f6d78e485b04ce1e821592ae5?d=identicon&s=25 Martin DeMello (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 12:25
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/13/07, Richard Conroy <richard.conroy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml? Private e-mail it if you think
> this thread has gone too OT. I am very interested. A healthy library
> ecology raises OCaml from something to keep an eye on, to immediate
> attention.

http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/hump.cgi

Share and enjoy :)

m.
703fbc991fd63e0e1db54dca9ea31b53?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Dober (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 12:28
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/13/07, Richard Conroy <richard.conroy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>




I didn't get enough time to itemise the OCaml library space. Apologies
> if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling
> and chasing resources and didn't find anything, and no real links from
> the main page or tutorials. I got the impression that Caml development
> basically meant binding to C libraries.
>
> Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml?


I think enough people have shown interest in this thread to reply on
list
(there is a delete button too;)
Caml has a Hump,right;) http://caml.inria.fr//cgi-bin/hump.en.cgi
more interesting stuff can be found here:

http://caml.inria.fr/resources/index.en.html

HTH
Robert
Ae16cb4f6d78e485b04ce1e821592ae5?d=identicon&s=25 Martin DeMello (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 14:43
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/10/07, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
> 
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/s...
>

my favourite quote from that article was lispnik Martin Rodgers's

Will write code that writes code that writes code for food.

martin
Cb48ca5059faf7409a5ab3745a964696?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 16:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, SonOfLilit wrote:

> Ruby taught me that that is SO WRONG.
>
> I install a compiler/interpreter and I want to DEVELOP THINGS.
>
> Having a distribution with nearly nothing is OK, but the standard should be
> as full of functionality as possible. That also establishes standards and
> saves hackers who want to hack on a project in the language from the
> uncomfortable experience of having to install a googol libraries.

i don't think that's slowed rails down too much...  it's a big install
too...

we can thank rubygems for that!

-a
4d5b5dd4e263d780a5dfe7ac8b8ac98c?d=identicon&s=25 Tim Pease (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 16:50
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/13/07, Richard Conroy <richard.conroy@gmail.com> wrote:
> if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling
> > language package contains nearly nothing, *that's an advantage*.
>
> Agreed. But if I didn't make it clear, my main concern was the availability
> of libraries for common development tasks, like database development,
> network comms protocols (particularly secure ones). etc.
>
> Yeah, this is getting more than a bit OT, but (O)Caml *is* interesting.
>

And you have to love the Ruby community where an off-topic humor
thread starts espousing the wonders of the ocaml language. I remember
a similar thing happening on a previous thread comparing Ruby and
Python. It, too, ended up discussing how the wonders of ocaml.

TwP
Cb48ca5059faf7409a5ab3745a964696?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 16:51
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Richard Conroy wrote:

> attention.
>
>> If the base
>> language package contains nearly nothing, *that's an advantage*.
>
> Agreed. But if I didn't make it clear, my main concern was the availability
> of libraries for common development tasks, like database development,
> network comms protocols (particularly secure ones). etc.
>
> Yeah, this is getting more than a bit OT, but (O)Caml *is* interesting.
>

it's OT - but not __that__ OT.  here's why

   http://sciruby.codeforpeople.com/sr.cgi/ProjectIde...

could be a beautiful thing....

-a
Cb48ca5059faf7409a5ab3745a964696?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 16:52
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Martin DeMello wrote:

> On 2/10/07, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
>> 
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/s...
>>
>
> my favourite quote from that article was lispnik Martin Rodgers's
>
> Will write code that writes code that writes code for food.

yeah - i though about stealing that one!

-a
703fbc991fd63e0e1db54dca9ea31b53?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Dober (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 17:19
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/13/07, Tim Pease <tim.pease@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/13/07, Richard Conroy <richard.conroy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/13/07, Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> wrote:
> > > Richard Conroy wrote:
> > > > It has some fantastic features at the language
> > > > design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
> > > > to speak of.
> > <snip>
>
> And you have to love the Ruby community


Well, I do :)

where an off-topic humor
> thread starts espousing the wonders of the ocaml language. I remember
> a similar thing happening on a previous thread comparing Ruby and
> Python. It, too, ended up discussing how the wonders of ocaml.


But is that not a well known law(n)?
42nd law of the dynamics of language discussion:
  All discussions eventually orbit O?Caml!

TwP
>
>
Robert
Ce8b03e5750097942c58e12b46724312?d=identicon&s=25 Giles Bowkett (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 17:29
(Received via mailing list)
> 42nd law of the dynamics of language discussion:
>   All discussions eventually orbit O?Caml!

The same publisher that released "Practical Common Lisp" recently
released "Practical OCaml." I've been wondering ever since I
discovered this whether it means OCaml has gradually become more
useful in a pragmatic sense, or if it simply represents one isolated
individual publisher with a very unusual definition of "practical."
18d3c84ca5a017fe3e96490afaea28aa?d=identicon&s=25 Richard Conroy (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 19:33
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/13/07, Giles Bowkett <gilesb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 42nd law of the dynamics of language discussion:
> >   All discussions eventually orbit O?Caml!
>
> The same publisher that released "Practical Common Lisp" recently
> released "Practical OCaml." I've been wondering ever since I
> discovered this whether it means OCaml has gradually become more
> useful in a pragmatic sense, or if it simply represents one isolated
> individual publisher with a very unusual definition of "practical."

I think much of the recent interest is due to a lot of big OSS projects
taking interest in it. Possibly the Mozilla group. Its the fusion of
ideas
that is most interesting:
* C-like nativeness, performance and compile-to-everything
* Memory management and runtime integrity with the implied security
that entails - features normally associated with Java
* Dynamic language benefits, like low-LOCs and implied maintenance
reduction, type inference and lots of funky language-isms that I don't
really
understand, that all the cool kids are into

It has the potential to carve out a significant niche for itself. Sure
if you
are intimidated by new languages look elsewhere, if you need the
'reassurance' of a corporate sponsor you won't find it here either, but
it has a lot of potential in the open source field, and anywhere really
that you need portable cross compilation.

Mind you, in this day and age when its getting hard to make Win 32
code that runs on windows anymore, theres opportunities there too.
Ce8b03e5750097942c58e12b46724312?d=identicon&s=25 Giles Bowkett (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 20:31
(Received via mailing list)
I know Jane St. Capital is using OCaml extensively in financial
trading apps, because I can't use Gmail without ads reminding me. It's
definitely in production for some uses.
Bf1e672f5e54581db4e6d45b7030d286?d=identicon&s=25 Steven Lumos (Guest)
on 2007-02-14 19:08
(Received via mailing list)
David Morton <mortonda@dgrmm.net> writes:

>> think the article is well worth reading.
>
> I have to disagree with the paper a bit.  It seems that the author is
> evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations...
> typical for academia.
>
> If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod_ocaml for apache?

Yes.

>are there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available?

Yes, yes, maybe not but none of these are quite rocket science so why
do you care?

>Is there a a nice framework like Rails to build with?

Well probably since it seems to be the only killer app in the world
and what every language zealot wants to copy.  There is probably also
a framework that was designed to take advantage of the strengths of
the language instead of merely regurgitating another *ails.

>(just picking on it because the author likes it so much. I've never
>used OCAML)
>
> The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language
> that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that).

The Pragmatic side of me says learn a language a year.

Steve
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.