(1..100).inject(&:+)
weblog.raganwald.com
(1..100).inject(&:+)
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: (1..100).inject(&:+)
#2Why I hate ruby.
Re: (1..100).inject(&:+)
#3Hahaha... Reg, it's like you wrote this in response to the recent article on Monkeypatching floating around here... Thanks! I enjoyed your writing as much as always... and it's especially timely today.
(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123071 if you don't know to which I am referring.)
Re: (1..100).inject(&:+)
#4Why I hate ruby.
The post? Or the quoted snippet of code?
;-)
Re: (1..100).inject(&:+)
#5Hahaha... Reg, it's like you wrote this in response to the recent article on Monkeypatching floating around here... Thanks! I enjoyed your writing as much as always... and it's especially timely today. ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123071 if you don't know to which I am referring.)
Weeeel...
The truth is, I wrote the idea behind this a while back using String#to_proc to compare the way Ruby (roll your own) and Python (Guido decides) evolve. But considering I have no Python experience, I never published the post.
Then today, for some reason, I was thinking about Open Classes again :-)
Re: (1..100).inject(&:+)
#6Anyone want to explain that code to someone who doesn't know Ruby?
Re: (1..100).inject(&:+)
#7Anyone want to explain that code to someone who doesn't know Ruby?
I'm not a ruby programmer and it's not immediately obvious what the result would be.
I know a pretty large number of languages to the point where, unless it's LISP, I can look at code in any language and have some idea of what it does. When a languages gets "so cool" that it's cryptic than I no longer see the benefit.
Re: (1..100).inject(&:+)
#8Anyone want to explain that code to someone who doesn't know Ruby?
Sums the first 100 integers. You are basically injecting a function (plus in this case) between each element and evaluating it (to describe in very non-technical sense).
Re: (1..100).inject(&:+)
#9Why I hate ruby.
Since I don't use ruby either...I tried a web based interpreter.
>> (1..100).inject(&:+)
TypeError: wrong argument type Symbol (expected Proc)
from (irb):1
edit:
Ok, did his monkeypatch and it worked. You get 5050. So it is equiv to sum(range(101)) in python, and much less readable. I fail to see why this is a good thing.
Re: (1..100).inject(&:+)
#10Anyone want to explain that code to someone who doesn't know Ruby?
I'm not a ruby programmer and it's not immediately obvious what the result would be. I know a pretty large number of languages to the point where, unless it's LISP, I can look at code in any language and have some idea of what it does. When a languages gets "so cool" that it's cryptic than I no longer see the benefit.
Would (1..100).fold(&:+) be more obvious? How about (1..100).reduce(&:+)? If either one of those makes sense, perhaps it is a question of Matz choosing Smalltalk's names for methods (collect, select, detect, reject, inject).
Please let me know if changing the name of the method doesn't help.