[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ruby

At 01:28 PM 11/27/2001 -0500, Scott McKay wrote:
>At 06:58 AM 11/27/01, Simon Cozens wrote:
>>On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 11:42:14PM -0500, Dan Weinreb wrote:
>> >    From: Lennon Day-Reynolds <lennon@day-reynolds.com>
>> >    Secondly, and more fundamentally, I find it much harder to get
>> >    excited about a language that's strictly OO. I fled Java for that
>> >    very reason
>> >
>> > Gee, you really abandoned Java for such a small problem?
>>You've hit the crux of it. It's not a small problem at all. If a
>>language doesn't fit the way I think about programming, it's not going
>>to be fun to use.
>This is not meant to be flame-bait, even though it may sound
>indistinguishable from trolling.
>If a language doesn't fit the way you (*) think about programming,
>perhaps you (*) should re-evaluate the way you are thinking.

Absolutely. And, conversely, if a language doesn't fit the way you (*) 
think, perhaps you (*) should re-evaluate the language design.

Computer languages are some of the least-natural human languages created. 
(And some are less natural than others) Like all other human languages, 
though, they shape the way you think about things. Sometimes the 
appropriate answer is to use a language so you can think about a problem 
differently. And sometimes the appropriate answer is to use a language to 
express how you're already thinking about a problem.

Like any other generalization (likely including this one) the statement 
"The correct programming language is always X", for any value of X, is wrong.

(*) Once again a non-personal you.


--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk