Re: ruby

[Simon Cozens <address@hidden>]

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

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
Ruby.
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
immediately.

Simon

-- 
I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions.
		-- Lillian Hellman