Interview with the Creator of Ruby 183
Lisa writes: "Yukihiro "Matz" Matsumoto talks about Ruby's history, the influence of Perl and Python on Ruby, and his new book, Ruby in a Nutshell. In the article he explains: "When I started the language project, I was joking with a friend that the project must be code-named after a gemstone's name (àla Perl). So my friend came up with "ruby". It's a short name for a beautiful and highly valued stone. So I picked up that name, and it eventually became the official name of the language. Later, I found out that pearl is the birthstone for June, and ruby is the birthstone for July. I believe Ruby is an appropriate name for the next language after Perl.""
next birthstone after perl? (Score:2, Funny)
Also check out this link (Score:4, Insightful)
-Vic
Re:Also check out this link (Score:2, Informative)
I remember the article on apple a while back where a guy just went through apple's web site and posted links to a whole shitload of apple products. He had +5 Informative so fast it made your head spin. Fucking moderators.
mmmm (Score:2, Troll)
Hitting the wall with syntax. (Score:1)
is tied to syntax, but not to any particular syntax; there is no ``object oriented syntax''. Syntax allows you to group some expressions together to express some semantic relationship.
Languages hit the wall when they have a hard-wired syntax, with hard-wired semantics.
Ruby is no exception. It's a whole lot of syntactic sugar for a bunch of non-programmable semantics. It was obsolete before it was conceived. Moreover, the author has a very limited view of what object oriented programming is, and suffers from a fundamental confusion that OO is somehow syntactically determined. This if from one of his slides:
//OOP
fi = File::new("sample.dat", "r")
fi.binmode = true
line = fi.readline()
fi.close
// Non-OOP
fi = fopen("sample.dat", "r")
fbinmode(fi, true)
line = freadline(fi)
fclose(fi)
So, in other words, something is object oriented if it uses the notation object.method(arg), but not object oriented if it uses the notation method(object, arg). Is this guy for real?
It takes a certain level of experience to see through the facade of curly braces, vertical bars, squiggles, splats, hashes, cokebottles and whatnot. Such devices, despite looking impressively cryptic and terse, do not imply any special power; they are designed to dazzle and seduce the undergraduate mind.
The real power arises when the same expression, whether it uses lots of syntactic sugar or not, can mean absolutely anything that the programmer wants, not only what the language designer wants it to mean.
Re:Hitting the wall with syntax. (Score:1)
I'm not trying to belittle your complaint, I'm genuinly interested in having a look at better programming languages.
Re:Hitting the wall with syntax. (Score:2)
Gee, does the compilier or interpreter have any say in this, or would that also be too restricting?
Can you point to any language that meets your criteria?
Re:Hitting the wall with syntax. (Score:2)
The usual argument for "OO syntax" is that the non-OO syntax for what is in reality an object (the file fi) "pollutes the name space" (creates lots of names of things at the global level).
That is really just a lexical problem of symbol management. Global symbol clashes are avoided by the use of packages. Lexical scoping has little or nothing to do with object orientation. Using C to emulate object oriented programming suffers from that problem because C has no namespaces or packages; programmers resort to conventions like adding a common prefix to related identifiers.
Re:mmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Other scripting languages have really hit a wall in development because of the objectless syntax, but ruby, is a piece of work.
Yeah, I can see your point. The other languages have a totally [perldoc.com] objectless [python.org] syntax [phpbuilder.com]!
Too bad they have all hit [python.org] a [perl.org] wall [zend.com].
Anyone got a link? (Score:1)
I checked the linked articles but couldn't find anything.
urls (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Anyone got a link? (Score:2, Informative)
Try the Ruby homepage here [ruby-lang.org] for downloads of the interperter.
Another good resource is for information about the language is Ruby Central [rubycentral.com], which includes the online version of the book, 'Programming Ruby - The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide' which is very use for those learing the language and as a general language reference.
Slashdot isn't trying to pedal some language... (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Slashdot isn't trying to pedal some language... (Score:2)
Well, if you look at this [slashdot.org] you'd see that if they *were* trying to pedal a certain language, it would probaly be perl, since perl stories average >1 a month.
Re:Slashdot isn't trying to pedal some language... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why another language (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why another language (Score:3)
I rarely end up using python professionaly other than for supernifty one off hacks (in heroic time!) but it's sure filled my head with nifty new ways of going about things in my 'mainstream' programming life.
I'm sure Ruby has it's little charms too. Must investigate.
Why that quote is true. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it is good for you.
Nice, but developer mindshare already too diluted (Score:4, Insightful)
The language biosystem is overpopulated, and mindshare starvation can be fatal to a new tool.
Mideshare (Score:2)
I couldn't disagree more. Mindshare may be needed for products but too much mindshare can kill ideas faster than anything. Memes that "everybody knows" are essentially dead. The language biosphere only seems overpopulated if you're used to living in the BASIC* & C* wasteland we had a few years back.
-- MarkusQ
What Ruby got that Python don't got? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, maybe there's some cool new syntactic sugar. Sure, it's sexy to be able to say you're developing in/developing libraries for/developing a brand new computer language. But unless there's some significant additional benefit to this new design, why re-invent the wheel with Yet Another Language?
So, SOMEONE must be able to tell me what's so *great* about Ruby that we should start calling Python obsolete. Either that, or acknowledge that Ruby is just a fun, impractical project that truly is re-inventing the wheel.
Re:Nothing ?! (Score:1, Insightful)
IMHO ruby is cleaner, well refactored, and consistent than python. You can almost guess how a class will work and it just work.
And cleanner syntax matters! That is why people switch from perl to python and many avoid lisp.
Re:Nothing ?! (Score:2)
It's hard to get syntax that is "cleaner" than Lisp syntax: Lisp syntax is very easy to parse, very easy to write, and completely unambiguous.
Re:Nothing ?! (Score:2)
Re:Nothing ?! (Score:2)
Actually, I was talking about parsing, not readability. But well-written Lisp is very readable, just like well-written C or well-written Java.
LISP, on the other hand, is easily parseable only for those with strange brain defects that make them love spending their days counting parens with bleary eyes.
Lisp, like Python, relies on indentation for readability. People never count parentheses, they use editors that handle parentheses for them. Python programmers don't go blind counting spaces either, they use editors that handle indentation for them.
The primary reason for LISPs lack of success in the real world, IMHO,
Lisp is probably more widely used today than Python or Ruby. It may be unfamiliar, but it is really easy to learn. CommonLisp failed mostly for reasons unrelated to syntax.
the ultimate success of least common denominator languages like Java lies in their parseability to somebody with only general knowledge of the specifics of the applications
Come on: "&&", "?:", and lots of other operators? Lots of braces? Oddball precedence rules? Variable declaration syntax with type modifiers on the variables? Prefix conversion operators with postfix method selectors? Java syntax is pretty tricky and unintuitive; people only consider it simple if they know C.
I also object to your characterization of Java as a "lowest common denominator" language. Java is a very powerful language, hidden under a deceptively familiar syntax.
Re:Nothing ?! (Score:2)
>Lisp is probably more widely used today than Python or
I highly doubt this. A perusal of the traffic of the python verson lisp newsgroups tells tales as does the paucity of available libraries for lisp when compared to those of python. I would hazard a guess that Lisp is used quite a bit less than Python.
C//
Re:Nothing ?! (Score:2)
Anyway, there's a great page out there by a guy who wrote a series of articles on the topic of "Worse is Better" and why LISP failed to maintain critical mindshare in the professional world and lost so much ground to C and C++, though functional languages seem to retain a serious support base in academe.
I sincerely doubt that LISP is that widely used - certainly it has a miniscule hobbyist following left, compared to Python. Even Ruby, while new-ish in the US probably has more users in Japan alone. LISP still has a lot of users in the business world, in software development projects at companies working on the rare project that is well suited to LISPs strengths (whatever exactly they are - beats me).
Java syntax is least common denominator because it basically steals C++ and removes everything that fucked up the morons working on larger projects (pointers, multiple inheritence, certain weird keywords, operator overloading). They left some stuff in it that may be weird to a LISP person, but to most people, thinking in one of the ALGOL-derived languages is still much more natural (procedural style) than thinking in functional style. Everyone seems to forget the real goal of a programming language is to translate between my wetware and bits and bytes and provide me with some insulation while still providing enough power and performance to build useable applications that can perform significant tasks.
Re:Nothing ?! (Score:1)
Re:What Ruby got that Python don't got? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, SOMEONE must be able to tell me what's so *great* about Ruby that we should start calling Python obsolete.
Ruby's iterators. IMHO, this simple construct provides 80% of the what's truly useful in a functional language without the ivory tower weirdness.
Having said that, Python 2.2 is soon adding it's own iterators and generators. They looks slightly less elegant, but I havent' tried them yet, so I can't be totally sure; they might be better.
Re:What Ruby got that Python don't got? (Score:1)
On the side note, Python learns [python.org] from them itself.
Re:What Ruby got that Python don't got? (Score:2)
I really don't see anything bolted-on about Python's iterators or generators.
def inorder(t):
if t:
for x in inorder(t.left):
yield x
yield t.label
for x in inorder(t.right):
yield x
for node in inorder(t):
print node
Re:What Ruby got that Python don't got? (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know Python, but I suspect the features of both Ruby and Python are similar. The syntax for Ruby is very nice.
What happened to you (switching from Perl to Python) is basically what happened to me, except it was Perl -> Ruby.
Can't you accept that it's possible for someone to actually like one language more than the other? (you obviously do, and are so closed minded to not give Ruby more than a quick look over)
I recommend reading some of the Pickaxe Book [rubygarden.org], which is available online.
What color is the sky in your world??? (Score:1)
It seams a little closed minded to call a post you don't agree with a flame...
Re:What color is the sky in your world??? (Score:1)
So, SOMEONE must be able to tell me what's so *great* about Ruby that we should start calling Python obsolete. Either that, or acknowledge that Ruby is just a fun, impractical project that truly is re-inventing the wheel.
Are just intended to be inflammatory, don't you think? I guess not.
What I'm saying is that just because a language doesn't severly improve on the features of another is not a good reason to dismiss it.
I have no problem with Python -- the problem I have is with people who are too closed minded enough to try new things. I know many people who use C all the time, and always spout the standard, "but you can do anything in C -- it's the best language, even for OO programming!" They say this because that's all they use, and assume nothing could possibly be better, becuase that's all they're familiar with.
I've said enough already
disagree!=flamebait or offtopic... (Score:2)
Re:disagree!=flamebait or offtopic... (Score:1)
Re:disagree!=flamebait or offtopic... (Score:1)
sorry, but the problem is you (Score:1, Offtopic)
If you disagree with an opinion in a reasonably politely worded message, respond with a good technical argument. Don't throw out random accusations or moderate down messages you merely disagree with.
Also, don't point people at a few hundred pages of documentation--it's counterproductive. If proponents of a tool are incapable of producing a concise statement of why their tool is better than other tools, people are entitled to assume that it isn't worth looking into it further. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of people who want mindshare, not on the shoulders of people who want to use existing tools.
(As for Ruby, it seems like a reasonable language with a nicer C interface than Python. Enough to switch? I don't know.)
Re:What Ruby got that Python don't got? (Score:2)
Ignorance is Strength (Score:4, Insightful)
[sigh.] All non-1stGLs are, boiled down, syntactic and semantic sugar. *That's the whole point.* You try and map the necessary, needs-of-the-machine language up to something closer to How People Think (tm).
> Sure, it's sexy to be able to say you're
> developing in/developing libraries for/developing
> a brand new computer language.
Yeah, I like to read the same book over and over, too. It's not like I can learn any new ideas from anything other than _Atlas_Shrugged_.
> But unless there's some significant additional
> benefit to this new design, why re-invent the
> wheel with Yet Another Language?
If nothing more, than to grind one's teeth on the *art* of language design. Am I reading you wrong, or are you actually convinced that Python and Perl are the highest glory of formal systems?
> So, SOMEONE must be able to tell me what's so
> *great* about Ruby that we should start calling
> Python obsolete. Either that, or acknowledge that
> Ruby is just a fun, impractical project that truly
> is re-inventing the wheel.
You should become a project manager, as you have the proper terror for new ideas. I'll be here at work over the weekend, grinding out shit in Visual C++ that could have been done in no fucking time with Common Lisp. But hey, those LISPs are just fun and impractical.
"And the people bowed and prayed to the neon god they made"
--_The_Sounds_of_Silence_
Re:Ignorance is Strength (Score:1)
Re:Ignorance is Strength (Score:2)
...No that's SmallTalk
Of course there are some langs that do exist pretty much for the art of it. Think Prolog (Oh ok.. PostScript uses). Doesn't mean we are not richer for them.
(Hope I didn't start a holy war here!).*grin*
Re:Ignorance is Strength (Score:2)
Maybe some people will just prefer Ruby (Score:1, Interesting)
It's a matter of which language fits you, the programmer, best instead of the other way around. A lot of folks find that programming in Ruby is just more natural to them than programming in either Perl or Python.
The message here is: give it a try. If it works for you and you decide that you really like it, then you've gained. If you try it out for a couple of days and decide that you don't like it, then you don't have to continue. Try it, you might like it.
Re:What Ruby got that Python don't got? (Score:1)
better C interface (Score:2)
Ruby looks a lot better in this regard, and that alone might be a reason to use it, even if otherwise it is roughly equivalent to Python.
Still, overall, it is disappointing to me that there is no Perl/Python/Ruby-like scripting language implemented in C++: using C++, the native code interface could be much simpler to use. Yes, there are various C++ wrappers for Python and probably the other languages, but they generally add a complex C++ layer around an already complex C interface.
Re:better C++ interface? (Score:1)
I think, it's better than to lose the ability of binding to pure C (or assembly, or whatever) code.
Re:better C++ interface? (Score:2)
Well, that may be true if you have grand schemes for the scripting language. But I'd happily give up C compatibility and the C ABI standard for easier, more reliable bindings to native code. Existence of something with a really nice C++ interface and implementation wouldn't obsolete existing scripting languages.
Re:better C interface (Score:1)
Still, overall, it is disappointing to me that there is no Perl/Python/Ruby-like scripting language implemented in C++: using C++, the native code interface could be much simpler to use.
Given that there is no C++ ABI standard (yet), I suspect this would be "simpler" only if you used the same compiler for the scripting language and the C++ code to be wrapped. Pretty limiting.
Re:What Ruby got that Python don't got? (Score:1)
Python uses functions that can also masquerade as methods. Ruby uses methods that can also masquerade as functions. This has enormous ramifications for the way OO feels in Ruby. For one thing, there's none of this nonsense about "well, some things are called object.foo() and others are foo(object). Read some of Guido's powerpoint presentations on Python. He really thinks the entire OO paradigm is a form of syntactic sugar for doing stateful programming. No serious fan of OO agrees. For my part, I thought Python was just the greatest thing since sliced bread until I tried to create serious object-oriented software with it.
Besides that, there's blocks, iterators, closures, true encapsulation, and access control.
No one who's serious about programming would say, Hey, why do we need Java. It's the same thing as C++! Least of all Eckell. I can't imagine why this would be considered a legitimate thing to say about Ruby and Python either.
Re:What Ruby got that Python don't got? (Score:1)
Bruce Eckel shows a lot of religious intolerance in that answer. Very strange for a normally pretty with it guy.
Bruce: So far I keep coming to the conlusion that Ruby is just a bad ripoff of Python, just like C# is a bad ripoff of C++.
Um, I wonder what books Bruce has been reading lately read... If anythong, Ruby is a ripoff of Perl, not Python. Just like C# is more a ripoff of Java than C++.
Ruby and Parrot (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ruby and Parrot (Score:1)
comp.lang.ruby
It would be cool if Ruby could play with Parrot too...
Re:Ruby and Parrot (Score:2)
As Long as You're Happy In ______ .... (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as some people feel happy using Ruby, that's enough of a reason for another language for me.
A-men.
It works for a lot of other things, too. Pick
a language, or political party, or religion, or
operating system, or city of residence, or
economic system, or mathematical notation, etc...
Seriously, folks, adopt this attitude, and the
world will sleep MUCH easier at night.
It ain't bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It ain't bad... (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps one of these (some out know, some to be published Real Soon Now) would help.
Re:It ain't bad... (Score:1)
As this turned to be the "let's bash Ruby" topic on Slashdot, I'll mention that I like Ruby a lot. I just wish that Perl wasn't so automatic to me at this point, else migration would be lots more fun.
How About Jade??? (Score:1)
Why the odd block structure? (Score:3)
Why are static conditional and loop blocks, and function and class definitions, so different from the brace type of general blocks, and so different-looking from Perl? And why is the option of "do ||
For example (and please correct me if my assumption is wrong), why can you choose between "for do ||
Whoops, I meant... (Score:1)
Re:Why the odd block structure? (Score:1)
def function
#stuff
}
syntax because it's not a matching pair (i.e., {...}) like it is with using {...} with blocks. I realize that x...end isn't necessarily a matching pair either, but...
This is pure speculation.
Need to see it in job ads before it's "official" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not officially OT. See, I still read wants ads. And I look at what's in demand for clues to what I should be learning, trends, etc. Databases are a good example from a couple years ago. I noticed that lots of the 1996 job ads had web->DB stuff in them, and so starting brushing up on databases in my off hours. It turned out to be useful later on. I know that one could take this line of reasoning to mean that everyone should start learning VB and IIS stuff, but it isn't an absolute. You kinda have to read all the ads and then stand back and squint to see the trendfs in your area. If you're a Unix geek, you'll see what ost people want, which might lead to learning something new.
My (long winded) point is: Ruby won't be on my radar until people can reasonably be expected to pay me for using it. I know I just got modded down in the minds of a lot of poeple by saying that, but it's how I think. When I see Ruby listed in want ads, then I start noticing it (especially if its mention grows over time). I figure that I need to kill two birds with one stone: know enough to get my job done by knowing a diverse enough range of stuff so that I can still get paid. If I spent all my time learning every other thing that came out, I'd never get any work done. And I'd only know a little bit about everything. I need to know a certain subset of things really well, and just the right amount about a lot of other stuff in order to stay competitive. It's setting that threshold of other stuff where the want ads come in handy. If everyone wants wireless all of the sudden, something's up. So I devote a little time to learning it.
I guess as I get older, I'm starting to value my unplugged time. I can't burn 36 straight hours engrossed in new (and mostly arcane) stuff like I did 15, 20, or even 10 years ago. I have to choose my projects and apply my time wisely. So whern I start seeing Ruby in the wants ads, I'll take a look. I'll be behind the curve, but that's fine.
-B
Re:Need to see it in job ads before it's "official (Score:1, Interesting)
But what if you were to learn it because it's fun?
"Fun?" Yeah, fun.
Another point: By the time something hits the help wanted ads in large numbers it's already gotten a some percentage way through it's active life. Look at Java - a lot of people started learning it because it looked like an important technology to them at the time, there weren't many Java jobs at first. Now everybody and his brother has learned Java, so you're competing with everybody and their brother.
BTW: I did see a Ruby ad at:
http://www.postget.com/get/ad.php?id=591
So maybe it's just starting and has a lot of life ahead of it - one can only hope.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Need to see it in job ads before it's "official (Score:1)
I don't think he was daying that young people don't value thir time; I think he was saying that, since he no longer has the energy of youth, he has less time to do all the things he might want to do, so he needs to be careful about how he spends his time in order to get to do all the stuff he wants.
Speaking as someone who, three years ago, couldn't even begin to dream how much a toddler could eat up your personal time, I understand (in some sense) exactly what he's saying :-)
Re:Need to see it in job ads before it's "official (Score:2)
You said it perfectly. I used to spend all night -- for weeks on end -- on a VIC-20 doing mostly useless stuff in BASIC. I didn't have a job, family (of my own), eating, anything really to get in the way of my interest. Back then I could attack things with a passion that had no regard for time or other personal responsibilities.
When I was in college, I could spend all night fooling with GIS stuff or pascal or whatever, just because I had to get that one project done. And more often than not, I'd "waste" plenty of time doing things not strictly necessary. I had more responsibility then than I did when I was in high school, but it was subconsciously counted as school, so I could metally get away with it.
Now I'm at the point where I come home and I just want to spend time with my family, in the garage working with wood or something, making a good dinner, etc. If I'm on the computer at night, it's with a very carefully chosen project. I don't have as much time to burn now as I did then. I have to choose my "battles". There's still plenty of room for fun, and that's what I do on my off hours. The trick is to make the fun stuff also count as work stuff.
Like another poster said, you have to have a well-rounded toolkit to get along. And I do. I've got a very well rounded set of skills, and I am always looking for more to learn. But consider the time budget imposed by age and responsibility with the ROI I'd get from learning another language roughly equivalent to a couple I already know. I can get by with perl and python and PHP in order to do what I do -- even for the fun stuff. It's when I see more and more job ads in the "computer" section ask for Ruby that I'll start to make that ROI worth it. In the meantime, there's plenty more stuff I have to know better than I do.
I wasn't saying that youth can or do waste their time. They just have more of it. Which they should enjoy to the fullest doing whatever it is that piques their curiosity, even if it doesn't "offically" count as something important. Us old guys don't get that luxury anymore... :-)
-B
Re:Need to see it in job ads before it's "official (Score:2, Informative)
"Client is a small advertising agency in Manhattan.
"Job consists of production work on heavily dHTML website. In order to minimize production pain, html pages are generated using Ruby (a wonderful language)."
Yay, Ruby!
Soak. (Score:1, Insightful)
Years ago you rarely saw jobs where Linux was asked for. If one were to take your stance no language would advance. Fact is that toys software is where the next popular thing comes from.
My advice? Bookmark a Ruby news site and read every couple of days. Just soak in it. You won't waste too much valuable time and it'll expand your mind. Maybe you'll be so interested you'll feel the urge to learn it in your spare time.
Fact is that as a programmer you can pick up Ruby in a month, and that means you'll adapt quickly enough to cope with the influx of Ruby, or any programming language.
There are many facts but they all miss the point. Will learning Ruby be worth my time commercially? Only a fool would answer that with any solidity. Spread your mind around information and just soak it in. Not just Ruby but Linux and Electronics and Interface. Choose wisely and spend a few minutes each day expanding your mind. Follow your heart and one day you'll get that pony, Jeff. You'll climb those stairs and drive that Porsche. And remember, you don't need the drugs when you're high on crack.
Language adaption (Score:3, Interesting)
Though you won't find it in your job ads, having a lot of languages (and a lot of different kinds of languages at that) on your resume is a definite bonus. Especially if there's a variety of languages (procedural, OO, functional, logic etc), it shows that you can easily adapt to a new language should that become an issue.
just have to wait. (Score:1)
print "Hello, World"
before i try to learn something else.
Re:just have to wait. (Score:4, Funny)
print "Hello, World"
before i try to learn something else.
You're in luck. That code is valid for both Python and Ruby. If you stay on this track, you'll master both languages in no time.
New World's Simplest Scripting Language (Score:1, Funny)
Re:just have to wait. (Score:2)
Must check out Ruby tho..
Re:just have to wait. (Score:1)
BTW, the python documentation is a godsend. Haven't seen the tutorial, but the reference, C API and embedded guide are very nice.
I'm going to come out with a scripting language (Score:1, Offtopic)
I long for the day when I will have an o'reilly interview where I get to sit and talk about ASS.
Re:I'm going to come out with a scripting language (Score:1)
And I'm sure people would be interested to see you do that.
Re:I'm going to come out with a scripting language (Score:1, Offtopic)
Ruby for Artificial Intelligence (Score:1)
There is a Mind-to-Ruby [sourceforge.net] liaison page for coodinating the implementation of an Open Source AI Theory of Mind [scn.org] in Ruby.
A previous instance of porting the AI to Visual Basic was Mind.VB of 3.Apr.2000. [virtualentity.com]
A more recent port from JavaScript into Java is at Mind.JAVA of June 2001. [angelfire.com]
The Ruby programming language leads to a technology transfer of American AI to advanced Japanese robots: the Technological Singularity. [caltech.edu]
Re:Ruby for Artificial Intelligence (Score:2)
Moderators, you know what to do. Check this weirdo's previous posts out.
Matz should clean up the syntaz while he still can (Score:1)
I think he should stick with one of the {} or do...end styles; eliminate the @ from @member (maybe .member?); generally don't be afraid to make it a MORE beautiful language.
One good thing... (Score:1)
better alternative for product development (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know if Ruby fits that bill, but it would be a reason to switch if it does.
Of course, I know that code in any language can be well documented and written so that's easy to understand. It just seems like code written in Perl is much more likely to be difficult to read than in other languages more appropriate for applications.
I'm part of a group that has had Perl code (using the OO facilities) handed off to it to maintain and fix. It contains many Packages and probaby several thousand lines of code. Not sure. I've successfully kept my name off the responsibility list for that code. It's been pure hell for the engineers that have been asked to fix it--and all it's supposed to be is a simple parser and data access interface.
I use Perl myself for my own scripting but it can be cruel and unusual punishment to be given someone else's Perl to maintain.
It's enough to make you take your clothes off and run around the office screaming "I CAN'T CODE NAKED!!! AHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!" until they put you on a different project.
Re:better alternative for product development (Score:2, Informative)
Ruby just clicks with a lot of people (Score:1, Interesting)
Sure some people will still prefer Perl and other Python, but a lot of people seem to be finding that Ruby just clicks for them.
Maybe it's Matz's design philosophy "The principal of least surprise"
I really hope Ruby gains ground (Score:3, Informative)
* There's iterators & blocks
*A unified class/type system (meaning you can extend built-in types like String,Array,Hash,Kernel, etc)
* fully OO - 42.times { |i| puts i }
but it doesn't get in the way when you don't want OO, like it seems to with Java.
* Design patterns - Observable,Delagator,Singleton,...
* dRuby - Ruby's very easy to use distributed object system.
For now it's great fun, hopefully someday it'll pay the bills too.
Yet another poorly communicated language... (Score:1, Flamebait)
I looked at Ruby. It is certainly a heartfelt attempt. However, it seems to me that yet another poor communicator has written yet another language.
Not only that, but the Ruby creator has created his own syntax. A new language has one big advantage for the creator: The creator finds the syntax very familiar. Everyone else must struggle.
Links:
The Ruby Home Page [ruby-lang.org]
Ruby Language Reference Manual [ruby-lang.org]
The Ruby Language FAQ [rubycentral.com]
Programming in the Ruby language [ibm.com] by Joshua D. Drake, who is a good communicator.
A Slashdot story and comments: Programming in the Ruby Language [slashdot.org]
Positive comments about Ruby:
Introducing the latest open source gem from Japan [ibm.com]
Thirty-seven Reasons I Love Ruby [hypermetrics.com] by Hal Fulton.
Negative comments about Ruby:
As mentioned above, Bruce Eckel does not like Ruby [mindview.net]:
"IMO, the Ruby syntax is
Eckel again: "... Python has 10 years behind it and a big, very smart, very active community, a nice number of good books and more on the way, a large set of libraries and a whole process and team in place for developing the language. Recent improvements to the language have outstripped whatever Ruby could offer, I think, and there's currently lots of very good work going on to further improve Python."
For those who would like to quickly see for themselves, there is a section of the The Ruby Language FAQ called Show me some Ruby code [rubycentral.com]
Quotes from Ruby's creator, a Japanese man with an incomplete command of English:
What is the history of Ruby?
"Well, Ruby was born on February 24 1993. I was talking with my colleague about the possibility of an object-oriented scripting language. I knew Perl (Perl4, not Perl5), but I didn't like it really, because it had smell of toy language (it still has). The object-oriented scripting language seemed very promising.
"I knew Python then. But I didn't like it, because I didn't think it was a true object-oriented language -- OO features appeared to be add-on to the language. As a language manic and OO fan for 15 years, I really wanted a genuine object-oriented, easy-to-use scripting language. I looked for, but couldn't find one.
"So, I decided to make it. It took several months to make the interpreter run. I put it the features I love to have in my language, such as iterators, exception handling, garbage collection.
"Then, I reorganized the features of Perl into a class library, and implemented them. I posted Ruby 0.95 to the Japanese domestic newsgroups in Dec. 1995.
"Since then, highly active mailing lists have been established and web pages formed."
--
Links to respected news sources show how U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Poor communication is a BIG problem... (Score:1, Flamebait)
I am saying that, for me as a native English speaker, the cost of being involved with Ruby is high:
Ruby is a language primarily written and maintained by one person. The author of the language says this in one of the links that I provided. The documentation in English is poor, and, because there is only one primary person working on the language, the documentation is likely to remain poor. That makes a big difference for anyone trying to learn a new computer language, because it vastly increases the cost (in time) of learning.
Also, if there is poor documentation in English, it has been my experience that fewer people adopt a new computer language. English is the world's most common second language. EVERY Japanese student studies English, my Japanese friends say. A friend in Thailand told me that there was a scholarship program to teach computer skills to Thais in Japan. The courses were taught in English.
Try a test: Call the main number of any large German bank. When the operator says hello in German, just start speaking English. You will find that the operator immediately switches to perfect English. If German banks think that communicating in English is important, maybe that is because communicating in English is important in today's world.
If fewer people adopt a computer language, there will be less development. If there is less development, then it may become one of the hundreds of languages that have eventually died. This would increase the cost of adopting Ruby still further.
Poor communication is a BIG issue with open source software, in my opinion (and closed source, too). In my opinion, poor communication is the one big barrier to getting rid of the Microsoft Windows operating system completely. I don't like Windows because I don't like being abused by Microsoft.
My city, Portland, Oregon, USA, has what is said to be the biggest bookstore in the world, Powell's [powells.com]. I went to Powell's technical bookstore and looked at about 20 books on Samba. ALL of them were very incomplete. ALL of them were poorly written.
--
Links to respected news sources show how U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Re:Poor communication is......(WAY OT by now)... (Score:1)
Maybe Slashdot should do an "Ask Bjarne" (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of automatically plugging C++ he suggested something like this:
1. Learn (or read) at least one every year or two so you don't get pigeonholed into the limitations of the language you use every day. Different languages promote different approaches - and different approaches/designs are the toolchest of this industry.
2. At least try out one functional language (Lisp/Scheme), one OOP language(C++/Java), one procedural language. None is better than the other, they have different takes on the world and shine at solving different types of problems.
3. Sticking with one language (at the total exclusion of others)limits your output and stunts your learning curve. Looking at more than one also reminds you what languages are for -- expressing more succinctly and clearly the instructions you want the computer to heed.
This being said, I look at lots of languages and I've learned a lot from using Ruby (and I use it a lot now). The best ideas from Perl, Smalltalk, Python and C/C++ are all there. The downsides are not (Perl - clumsy OO, Smalltalk - high-priced/low acceptance, Python whitespace-significance/non-OO primitives, C/C++ - compilation, etc.). The user community is probably the most helpful and thoughtful I've been a part of as well.
As far as Ruby's success at translating your thoughts to working programs? I read posts where people claimed they wrote less code, got more functionality, and fewer bugs right away. At the same time, they claimed they generally produced cleaner solutions at a faster rate than they ever had before with Perl or Python. Skeptical at first, I tried it out. . . I was shocked to find it was true for me within 2 days - I was sold.(note - I really am baffled by Bruce Eckel's comments on Ruby. .
Final note: If you are interested in becoming a better programmer, you should get the book "The Pragmatic Programmer" and read it(It was previously and glowingly reviewed by Slashdot - and no, I'm not the author). Its full of great advice on how to approach new languages and the general art of programming. The authors also wrote the book "Programming Ruby" (The "pickaxe" book) and they are big fans of Ruby as well.
Re:Maybe Slashdot should do an "Ask Bjarne" (Score:1)
I agree... (Score:2)
Truly, you do not miss typing the explicit block delimiters after trying it. As far as anyone who argues that indenting code is bad goes... well get with it. Really.
Re:Maybe Slashdot should do an "Ask Bjarne" (Score:1)
A framework for web apps (Score:3, Informative)
You can check out the site [outerbody.com], the code [outerbody.com] and the thing at work [outerbody.com].
Pretty neat! There are also some nice Ruby resources at the same site [outerbody.com].
Ruby was the father of Microsoft Visual Basic. (Score:1, Informative)
Sources:
http://www.webword.com/interviews/cooper.html
http://www.cooper.com/
Ruby incorporated into Midgard core (Score:1)
Wrong sort of Ruby (Score:2)
When I first saw the title I immediately thought it was another thing by the same name: Ruby Annotation [w3.org]. (31 May 2001, Marcin Sawicki, Michel Suignard, Masayasu Ishikawa, Martin Dürst, Tex Texin)
The sort of Ruby I had in mind was a type of markup used to add pronunciation alongside text.
Re:Shoga wa? (Score:4, Funny)
Like Java(tm). Oh, wait, that's the power of COBOL with the ease of, well, COBOL.
Java is a trademark or registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and other countries. All rights reserved. The Java name and Java logo may not be used without express permission from Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun Microsystems reserves the right to pretend interest in "open source" development yet maintian dictatorial control over ever last freaking aspect of the Java bloated programming language because Sun Microsystems were the first and only people to think of "write once, run anywhere." Oh, and that phrase is trademarked, too, so don't even think of applying it to anything else, even if it's true (which it isn't for Java, but we have the marketing and the laywers, so there).
Re:Shoga wa? (Score:1)
Re:Shoga wa? (Score:2)