This is probably old news to many here, but I found it
to be an interesting read, with implications for Ruby.
"Succinctness is Power"
Paul Graham
-r
--
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm Rich Morin
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume rdm@cfcl.com
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/weblog +1 650-873-7841
Technical editing and writing, programming, and web development
Rich Morin wrote:
This is probably old news to many here, but I found it
to be an interesting read, with implications for Ruby."Succinctness is Power"
Paul Graham-r
I'm totally underwhelmed by Paul Graham's writings. First of all,
succinctness in programming languages gives rise to languages like
Forth, Scheme/Lisp, and APL. While all three have their cults, and all
three are still in use in their well-defined niches, they are not viable
candidates for most programming projects for one reason or another.
Second, the "conventional wisdom" is that the power of Ruby comes from
dynamic typing, flexible syntax, metaprogramming, and a kind of "upward
compatibility" from Perl.I don't think succinctness is a factor.
Agreed. The only way that I consider Ruby as being more succinct
compared to other languages such as C++, C, Java, VB, etc. is that
there's less curly braces, and no redundant typing of new static
variables. God, I'm glad I can choose what I program in!
If I was to make a string in Java I would say:
String myString = new String("foo");
But if I was in Ruby I would just say:
myString = "foo"
I know it's not like I'm typing the Rosetta Stone, but Ruby saves me a
lot of needless typing (bad pun intended perhaps).
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Rich Morin wrote:
> This is probably old news to many here, but I found it
> to be an interesting read, with implications for Ruby.
>
> "Succinctness is Power"
> Paul Graham
>
> -r
I'm totally underwhelmed by Paul Graham's writings. First of all,
succinctness in programming languages gives rise to languages like
Forth, Scheme/Lisp, and APL. While all three have their cults, and all
three are still in use in their well-defined niches, they are not viable
candidates for most programming projects for one reason or another.Second, the "conventional wisdom" is that the power of Ruby comes from
dynamic typing, flexible syntax, metaprogramming, and a kind of "upward
compatibility" from Perl.I don't think succinctness is a factor.
No, you would say
String myString = "foo";
Java does have literal strings, you know.
On 9/29/06, gregarican <greg.kujawa@gmail.com> wrote:
If I was to make a string in Java I would say:
String myString = new String("foo");
--
Contribute to RubySpec! @ Welcome to headius.com
Charles Oliver Nutter @ headius.blogspot.com
Ruby User @ ruby.mn
In the old days we used to day "Strong typing breaks keyboards!"
On 9/30/06, gregarican <greg.kujawa@gmail.com> wrote:
If I was to make a string in Java I would say:
String myString = new String("foo");
But if I was in Ruby I would just say:
myString = "foo"
I know it's not like I'm typing the Rosetta Stone, but Ruby saves me a
lot of needless typing (bad pun intended perhaps).
--
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
gregarican wrote:
I know it's not like I'm typing the Rosetta Stone, but Ruby saves me a
lot of needless typing (bad pun intended perhaps).
Funnily enough, I find full autocomplete saves me more net keystrokes.
And reaching for the Shift key. And I find keystroke arguments silly
overall.
However, type inferencing local variables I'd still stab for.
David Vallner
While I don't think Paul Graham's idea of succinctness is the only measure of the value of a programming language, I think he's on to something. Succinctness can give you an idea of the level at which concepts can be expressed in a language.
By way of example, here's some code from one of my production Ruby apps that takes an array of different versions of a Monkey object (don't ask), and returns a new array containing the changes between each version and the next:
monkeys.enum_cons(2).collect {|a, b| b.differences_from(a) }
This is a lot more succinct than any way I can think to write the equivalent in C++, C, Java, VB, etc. precisely because Ruby has constructs that let me express the ideas of "step through pairs of elements in this array" and "collect the results of applying an operation to each one". In most languages, of course, I'd have to write my own loop and do this step by step.
This is powerful because I'm expressing things in the same way I naturally think about the problem: step through the array in pairs, collecting the results of taking the differences between each pair. That means fewer errors, simpler testing, more confidence in the code, and better readability and maintainability.
So we have some good succinct code. Is the succinctness what's good about it? Not in itself, but the succinctness certainly hints that we must be describing our solution at a fairly high level, and that's a good thing.
Pete Yandell
On 30/09/2006, at 2:40 PM, gregarican wrote:
Agreed. The only way that I consider Ruby as being more succinct
compared to other languages such as C++, C, Java, VB, etc. is that
there's less curly braces, and no redundant typing of new static
variables. God, I'm glad I can choose what I program in!
I think he's onto something but that there's more to the picture.
Actually what I found more interesting was one of the links off the
essay, though, specifically this one:
http://wwwipd.ira.uka.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpprtTR.pdf
In which a study of the same problem solved by many different
programmers in many different languages found that there were definite
productivity differences between languages, but that the productivity
differences between programmers were much more significant.
I think it's obvious that succinctness is a particular power, but the
question of succinctness being equivalent to power, I'm still somewhat
unconvinced.
--
Giles Bowkett
http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
On 9/30/06, Pete Yandell <pete@notahat.com> wrote:
On 30/09/2006, at 2:40 PM, gregarican wrote:
> Agreed. The only way that I consider Ruby as being more succinct
> compared to other languages such as C++, C, Java, VB, etc. is that
> there's less curly braces, and no redundant typing of new static
> variables. God, I'm glad I can choose what I program in!While I don't think Paul Graham's idea of succinctness is the only
measure of the value of a programming language, I think he's on to
something. Succinctness can give you an idea of the level at which
concepts can be expressed in a language.By way of example, here's some code from one of my production Ruby
apps that takes an array of different versions of a Monkey object
(don't ask), and returns a new array containing the changes between
each version and the next:monkeys.enum_cons(2).collect {|a, b| b.differences_from(a) }
This is a lot more succinct than any way I can think to write the
equivalent in C++, C, Java, VB, etc. precisely because Ruby has
constructs that let me express the ideas of "step through pairs of
elements in this array" and "collect the results of applying an
operation to each one". In most languages, of course, I'd have to
write my own loop and do this step by step.This is powerful because I'm expressing things in the same way I
naturally think about the problem: step through the array in pairs,
collecting the results of taking the differences between each pair.
That means fewer errors, simpler testing, more confidence in the
code, and better readability and maintainability.So we have some good succinct code. Is the succinctness what's good
about it? Not in itself, but the succinctness certainly hints that we
must be describing our solution at a fairly high level, and that's a
good thing.Pete Yandell
Giles Bowkett wrote:
I think it's obvious that succinctness is a particular power, but the
question of succinctness being equivalent to power, I'm still somewhat
unconvinced.
Perhaps he's inferring a non-equivalence relationship, but perhaps a "is
propotional to" relationship, or similar based on how you go about
measuring succinctness and power in the first place.
Nic
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Dr Nic wrote:
Giles Bowkett wrote:
I think it's obvious that succinctness is a particular power, but the
question of succinctness being equivalent to power, I'm still somewhat
unconvinced.Perhaps he's inferring a non-equivalence relationship, but perhaps a "is
propotional to" relationship, or similar based on how you go about
measuring succinctness and power in the first place.Nic
Well, considering that Paul Graham is a Lispnik, I think we can infer
what his definitions of "powerful" and "succinct" in a programming
language are. What would be interesting to me would be where he stands
on the great "Common Lisp vs. Scheme" divide. Or what he thinks of
Forth, the "other succinct and powerful language." 
Perhaps more to the point would be a comparison of Lisp, Scheme and Ruby
as hosts for internal domain-specific languages. Didn't somebody do that
already?
Well, considering that Paul Graham is a Lispnik, I think we can infer
what his definitions of "powerful" and "succinct" in a programming
language are. What would be interesting to me would be where he stands
on the great "Common Lisp vs. Scheme" divide.
He's definitely from the Schemer tradition; Favouring recursion over iteration even though Common Lisp is not tail-recursive; Eschewing Common Lisp's powerfool 'Loop' construct because it's not lispish enough; Frequently explaining how using OO, and in especial, CLOS, are simply artifacts of not knowing how to use macros and lambdas properly; Listing a feature set for that 'dream lisp' you're going to create one day which has almost a one-to-one feature parity with Scheme R6RS.
Perhaps more to the point would be a comparison of Lisp, Scheme and Ruby
as hosts for internal domain-specific languages. Didn't somebody do that
already?
Down that way lies flamewars, madness and death. I reckon it is sufficient to notice that Scheme is a little too minimalist to be a useful general-purpose language, the relative paucity of Lisp's library ecosystem works against its chances of ever breaking the mainstream and that Matz admits himself to borrowing good things liberally from Lisp(s) just as from Smalltalk and Perl, Ruby's two other formidable forbears.
In any case, there's a question about about to what extent you *should* host DSLs internally. It's my feeling that if you want to inline a DSL in your code, make sure that language is still syntactically recognizably a Ruby. Ruby on Rails is a classic example.
If you want to create a non-idiomatic, syntactically strange DSL and inline it in your code via abuse of language facilities, that's how you end up with Common Lisp's 'Loop' Macro. It's not good, and it's definitely ugly, as Paul Graham says.
Once you cross that line where your DSL is no longer 'a Ruby', create a grammar for it and knock together a parser for it in Racc.
Martin
Well, considering that Paul Graham is a Lispnik, I think we can infer
what his definitions of "powerful" and "succinct" in a programming
language are. What would be interesting to me would be where he stands
on the great "Common Lisp vs. Scheme" divide. Or what he thinks of
Forth, the "other succinct and powerful language."Perhaps more to the point would be a comparison of Lisp, Scheme and Ruby
as hosts for internal domain-specific languages. Didn't somebody do that
already?
(Some fun w/ Lisp and Ruby: http://www.rubyquiz.com/quiz49.html\)
I once had this little conversation with a programmer tha I respect a lot:
He: "Does Ruby have closures?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "Does Ruby have continuations?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "So it's basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax."
I had no reply.
Bye,
Kero.
Martin Coxall wrote:
In any case, there's a question about about to what extent you *should*
host DSLs internally. It's my feeling that if you want to inline a DSL
in your code, make sure that language is still syntactically
recognizably a Ruby. Ruby on Rails is a classic example.
The problem I have with the two best-known Ruby DSLs, Rails and Rake, is
the somewhat non-intuitive mix of words that don't begin with colons,
and symbols, which do. And Rails requires YAML in some places that are
jarring to the reader. Why is the database connection description file
in YAML and not in "a Ruby"?
If you want to create a non-idiomatic, syntactically strange DSL and
inline it in your code via abuse of language facilities, that's how you
end up with Common Lisp's 'Loop' Macro. It's not good, and it's
definitely ugly, as Paul Graham says.Once you cross that line where your DSL is no longer 'a Ruby', create a
grammar for it and knock together a parser for it in Racc.
Ah, but once you cross that boundary and start building an external DSL,
what does Ruby have to offer that other compiler-compiler tools don't
have? Mind you, I haven't yet tried to build anything with Racc, so I
don't know if it's a significant improvement on Yacc, Bison or the Java
thingie -- is it Antlr??
> Well, considering that Paul Graham is a Lispnik, I think we can infer
> what his definitions of "powerful" and "succinct" in a programming
> language are. What would be interesting to me would be where he stands
> on the great "Common Lisp vs. Scheme" divide. Or what he thinks of
> Forth, the "other succinct and powerful language."
>
> Perhaps more to the point would be a comparison of Lisp, Scheme and Ruby
> as hosts for internal domain-specific languages. Didn't somebody do that
> already?(Some fun w/ Lisp and Ruby: http://www.rubyquiz.com/quiz49.html\)
I once had this little conversation with a programmer tha I respect a lot:
He: "Does Ruby have closures?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "Does Ruby have continuations?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "So it's basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax."
Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder
I had no reply.
OO?
Bye,
Kero.
Robert
On 10/2/06, Kero <kero@chello.single-dot.nl> wrote:
--
Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la bêtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.
- Albert Einstein
Oh, that's easy:
"Any language that ends nearly every function definition with the line:
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
does NOT win the International Code Beauty Award."
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 04:50:12 +0900 Kero <kero@chello.single-dot.nl> wrote:
> Well, considering that Paul Graham is a Lispnik, I think we can infer
> what his definitions of "powerful" and "succinct" in a programming
> language are. What would be interesting to me would be where he stands
> on the great "Common Lisp vs. Scheme" divide. Or what he thinks of
> Forth, the "other succinct and powerful language."
>
> Perhaps more to the point would be a comparison of Lisp, Scheme and Ruby
> as hosts for internal domain-specific languages. Didn't somebody do that
> already?(Some fun w/ Lisp and Ruby: http://www.rubyquiz.com/quiz49.html\)
I once had this little conversation with a programmer tha I respect a lot:
He: "Does Ruby have closures?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "Does Ruby have continuations?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "So it's basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax."I had no reply.
--
Zed A. Shaw, MUDCRAP-CE Master Black Belt Sifu
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
http://www.lingr.com/room/3yXhqKbfPy8 -- Come get help.
Kero wrote:
(Some fun w/ Lisp and Ruby: http://www.rubyquiz.com/quiz49.html\)
I once had this little conversation with a programmer tha I respect a lot:
He: "Does Ruby have closures?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "Does Ruby have continuations?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "So it's basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax."I had no reply.
Well ... Ruby has closures and continuations, but does it have the third
hallmark of Scheme -- efficient tail recursion?
(Some fun w/ Lisp and Ruby: http://www.rubyquiz.com/quiz49.html\)
I once had this little conversation with a programmer tha I respect a lot:
He: "Does Ruby have closures?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "Does Ruby have continuations?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "So it's basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax."
Coming from a LISPer, that's pretty rich. Schemers have no sense of irony.
I had no reply.
Pah. There were plenty. What about "extensive standard library", "flexible
OO architecture", "large ecosystem of modules", "namespaces/modularity",
"((((((fewer)(parentheses)))))))))))))))))))))))" etc.?
Martin
I once had this little conversation with a programmer tha I respect a lot:
He: "Does Ruby have closures?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "Does Ruby have continuations?"
Me: "Yes"
He: "So it's basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax."I had no reply.
You know, there's a great blog thingy somewhere, I forgot who but I
think it was by Mark-Jason Dominus, about how Lisp will never be big
because it has a mean, dysfunctional community with an axe to grind.
It's kind of related to Bruce Tate's thing that being a superior
language is not enough, you have to have market adoption as well.
Of course there are also good arguments out there against becoming
"mainstream" in the first place.
--
Giles Bowkett
http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Martin Coxall wrote:
In any case, there's a question about about to what extent you *should*
host DSLs internally. It's my feeling that if you want to inline a DSL
in your code, make sure that language is still syntactically
recognizably a Ruby. Ruby on Rails is a classic example.The problem I have with the two best-known Ruby DSLs, Rails and Rake, is
the somewhat non-intuitive mix of words that don't begin with colons,
and symbols, which do.
True, but at least it's recognizably, syntactically, Ruby. I'm not sure there's a way round the colon issue, you just have to live with it.
And Rails requires YAML in some places that are
jarring to the reader. Why is the database connection description file
in YAML and not in "a Ruby"?
I guess, because the feeling is that YAML is more recognizable as user-editable config than a Ruby script, which would tend to frighten some people off?
Once you cross that line where your DSL is no longer 'a Ruby', create a
grammar for it and knock together a parser for it in Racc.Ah, but once you cross that boundary and start building an external DSL,
what does Ruby have to offer that other compiler-compiler tools don't
have?
Easy integration with the rest of your Ruby codebase, mainly.
Mind you, I haven't yet tried to build anything with Racc, so I
don't know if it's a significant improvement on Yacc, Bison or the Java
thingie -- is it Antlr??
Well, C is not a great language for writing parsers in, and in my experience neither is Java. The best language I've seen for writing language parsers is Haskell. Though Racc does a competent job. I don't think it's antlr, though.
Martin
On 1 Oct 2006, at 11:40, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
DHH mentioned at Canada on Rails (if I recall) that having
database.yml instead of database.rb was basically a beginner's
mistake, and that distant-future plans include turning that into a
Ruby script.
So, at least the rails core team agrees with you. Heh.
On 10/1/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
Martin Coxall wrote:
> In any case, there's a question about about to what extent you *should*
> host DSLs internally. It's my feeling that if you want to inline a DSL
> in your code, make sure that language is still syntactically
> recognizably a Ruby. Ruby on Rails is a classic example.The problem I have with the two best-known Ruby DSLs, Rails and Rake, is
the somewhat non-intuitive mix of words that don't begin with colons,
and symbols, which do. And Rails requires YAML in some places that are
jarring to the reader. Why is the database connection description file
in YAML and not in "a Ruby"?