Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could make the case. To me, Ruby looks like a strange hybrid of Python, SmallTalk, and Perl.
This makes Ruby sound far more attractive than it really is to me.
What would you change about it?
If programming languages were religions
101–110 of 119 posts
Re: If programming languages were religions
#102his comments on C are completely unfounded. C's type coercion means you can ram all sorts of things into places they aren't supposed to go. typecasting says to me that there is nothing orthodox about C at all. if anything it is modern protestantism, a faith that lets you ram in whatever you want, but one wrong move and you go to hell (segfault)
If hell is segfault, then Heaven must be a memory leak?
Heaven is where C programmers go when they move to C++ and discover shared_ptr.
Re: If programming languages were religions
#103Re: If programming languages were religions
#104Re: If programming languages were religions
#105Visual Basic would be Satanism - Except that you don't REALLY need to sell your soul to be a Satanist... Dim! Yuck.
Saw that exact comment on Reddit. Make of that what you will.
Re: If programming languages were religions
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't think Perl is a productive language, then you have never been a UNIX system administrator.
The irony of that statement is creating a vortex of it's own. ;-)
Irony...like rain on your wedding day? Or maybe a traffic jam when you're already late?
I'm not sure you and I are working with the same definition of irony here. You don't like Perl, that we understand. But if you can honestly say you believe that Perl is not among the most productive, if not the most productive, glue languages for use in UNIX system administration tasks...then, well, I don't know what to say. One can't really have a rational discussion with someone who is that far off the map.
Re: If programming languages were religions
#107You mean they aren't already?
Re: If programming languages were religions
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
This makes Ruby sound far more attractive than it really is to me.
What would you change about it?
Well, when I hear that something is a mix of a bunch of other things, I tend to picture the best about those things.
So if Ruby had:
* The clarity of Python
* As well as the batteries-includedness of Python
* With the flexibility of Perl
* As well as a library managed as well as CPAN
* With the tooling of Smalltalk
* But without the weird VM business
Re: If programming languages were religions
#109Re: If programming languages were religions
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you change about it?
Well, when I hear that something is a mix of a bunch of other things, I tend to picture the best about those things. So if Ruby had: * The clarity of Python * As well as the batteries-includedness of Python * With the flexibility of Perl * As well as a library managed as well as CPAN * With the tooling of Smalltalk * But without the weird VM business Then Ruby would be much more attractive to me. I'm not saying there…
I find python's clarity lacking in comparison to ruby, at least in terms of making classes and iterators. Why are all those underscores really necessary?
No mention on your other points here because I either agree or don't have an experienced opinion on the matter.