[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 10:01:54AM -0800, Lennon Day-Reynolds wrote:
> First, like all new (for some value of 'new') languages, there is a
> lack of a single, logical path you can use to learn and begin
> experimenting with Ruby. Python has the online tutorial, and Perl
> has the Camel Book, and while I'm sure that Ruby will be there
> soon, I didn't get the same sense of guidance and support starting
> out with the language. There is also the 'new' language issue of
> library support; while I'm sure that there are, say, XML parsers,
> profilers, etc. out there, the time I spend digging for them,
> rather than just checking the standard library documentation or
> going to CPAN, is time that could have been spend writing code.
There are some reasons why I like running Debian. :)
% apt-cache search ruby | wc -l
101 packages about ruby; including:
rubybook - the "Programming Ruby" book
librexml-ruby - pure Ruby non-validating XML parser supporting Namespaces,
XPathlibxml-parser-ruby - The interface of expat for the scripting language
nqxml - pure Ruby implementation of a non-validating XML processor
There *is* a lot of Ruby stuff out there, but I agree it's not easy
to find. (Unless you speak much Japanese. ;)
http://www.ruby-garden.org/ is a neat resource, too.
> 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
I have to agree here; loops being methods on code objects worry me -
it seems like OO for the sake of OO, not for the sake of utility.
OTOH, it does do some OO things very right - mixins spring to mind
I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions.
-- Lillian Hellman
- From: Eli Collins <email@example.com>
- Re: ruby
- From: Lennon Day-Reynolds <firstname.lastname@example.org>