Returning to the conversation on the interpreter speed I wish to say again
that Ruby should not be compared to C++ on tasks like sorting, image
processing etc. Take Smalltalk. It was developed as very slow language but
it lives for now.
Because its goal is to control low-level processes, but not to implement
them. Thus Ruby should not race with others but should extend its control
features. One of those is exception handling. I like the mechanismus in
Smalltalk. The faeature I would like to see in Ruby is ability to proceed
from the next line or repeat the operator throwing the exception.
Returning to the conversation on the interpreter speed I wish to say
again
that Ruby should not be compared to C++ on tasks like sorting, image
processing etc. Take Smalltalk. It was developed as very slow language
but
it lives for now.
Because its goal is to control low-level processes, but not to implement
them. Thus Ruby should not race with others but should extend its control
features. One of those is exception handling. I like the mechanismus in
Smalltalk. The faeature I would like to see in Ruby is ability to proceed
from the next line or repeat the operator throwing the exception.
what about retry and rescue? dosn’t these fulfil your needs?
Returning to the conversation on the interpreter speed I wish to say
again
that Ruby should not be compared to C++ on tasks like sorting, image
processing etc. Take Smalltalk. It was developed as very slow language
but
it lives for now.
Because its goal is to control low-level processes, but not to implement
them. Thus Ruby should not race with others but should extend its
control
features. One of those is exception handling. I like the mechanismus in
Smalltalk. The faeature I would like to see in Ruby is ability to
proceed
from the next line or repeat the operator throwing the exception.
what about retry and rescue? dosn’t these fulfil your needs?
robert
These don’t resume to the operator raising the exception.
what about retry and rescue? dosn’t these fulfil your needs?
Smalltalk can have resumable exception.
See [ruby-talk:18099]
Guy Decoux
Thanks. But in [ruby-talk:18102] matz said that “It requires deep core
rewrite.”
I mention this again, because I hope smth has been changed sinse that time
;)))
Thanks. But in [ruby-talk:18102] matz said that “It requires deep core
rewrite.”
I mention this again, because I hope smth has been changed sinse that time ;)))
I’m sorry, no, unless you save continuations when you raise exceptions.
I tried sometimes, but resumable exception (by continuation) is not
useful as much as I expected at the first thought.