Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I just round Ruby to be very ad-hoc and I-made-this-up-as-I-went-along. 
> 
> I agree with this.

So does at least one other blog I read (by a computer science lecturer 
who has a liking for Haskell).

> I gave it up as 
> soon as I realized they were changing defaults on what I'd think were 
> fairly important library calls between v1.18 and v1.19, with no 
> consideration for backwards compatibility and (afaict) no real good 
> reason for it.

Mmm, sounds like *cough* Java. :-)

>> I prefer a language founded on a small set of basic axioms and 
>> everything derived from there. But hey, I'm told some folks quite like 
>> Ruby, so... ;-)
> 
> I suspect it's mostly people who have worked with a very limited set of 
> languages that quite like it. Sort of like living in Hawaii or San 
> Diego, and then going to visit the great beaches of Europe and saying 
> "Yah? So? What's the big deal with the Italian Riviera?"

Some day I'll figure that one out... heh.

Anyway, suffice it to say that Ruby doesn't seem to fit the kind of 
programs *I* write very well.

Post a reply to this message