Quite impressive.
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=146091
···
--
James Britt
"Blanket statements are over-rated"
Phil Tomson wrote:
In article <43DA42DD.4030907@neurogami.com>,
Quite impressive.
Wow. Kudos to the Seattle.rb folks. It's great when you can move
someone from the "biased against you" camp into the "gee, the
language has some interesting features" camp.
Definitely. Although I have to admit that I find the selection of
features Bruce chose a bit strange. Although he mentions blocks this
would rather be something I had at the top of my list. Anyway, let's see
how this develops.
Cheers
robert
···
James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:
In defense of Bruce, he was not vehemently against Ruby. He just wanted
to see an in-depth comparison of Ruby against Python. He admitted not
looking at Ruby very much.
I suspect the more he looks at Ruby and the more others point out why
Ruby is great to him, the more he will come to see its value.
Robert Klemme wrote:
Phil Tomson wrote:
In article <43DA42DD.4030907@neurogami.com>,
Quite impressive.
Wow. Kudos to the Seattle.rb folks. It's great when you can move
someone from the "biased against you" camp into the "gee, the
language has some interesting features" camp.
Definitely. Although I have to admit that I find the selection of
features Bruce chose a bit strange. Although he mentions blocks this
would rather be something I had at the top of my list. Anyway, let's see
how this develops.
I thought the same thing when I read his comments. To me, blocks are the most useful feature that Ruby has over Python. His quick comment on blocks indicates he probably doesn't "get" them yet. I know it took me a while to understand how cool they were.
Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email and any materials contained in any attachments is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the intended recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender by email and destroy all copies of the original message, including attachments.
···
James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:
Yeah, some of the examples bugged me too, like Array#dump (which is just `puts array`).
Ah well, he tried to learn a little. Have to give points for that.
James Edward Gray II
···
On Feb 1, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:
Phil Tomson wrote:
In article <43DA42DD.4030907@neurogami.com>,
James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:Quite impressive.
Wow. Kudos to the Seattle.rb folks. It's great when you can move
someone from the "biased against you" camp into the "gee, the
language has some interesting features" camp.Definitely. Although I have to admit that I find the selection of
features Bruce chose a bit strange. Although he mentions blocks this
would rather be something I had at the top of my list. Anyway, let's see
how this develops.
Bruce and I spent a ton of time on blocks including syntax and use. We didn't go over much ruby code, so I don't think he's had enough exposure to blocks to see how they're commonly used.
It didn't come across in the writeup very well, but blocks was something Bruce wanted lots of information on.
···
On Feb 1, 2006, at 1:39 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:
Phil Tomson wrote:
In article <43DA42DD.4030907@neurogami.com>,
James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:Quite impressive.
Wow. Kudos to the Seattle.rb folks. It's great when you can move
someone from the "biased against you" camp into the "gee, the
language has some interesting features" camp.Definitely. Although I have to admit that I find the selection of
features Bruce chose a bit strange. Although he mentions blocks this
would rather be something I had at the top of my list. Anyway, let's see
how this develops.
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant
Its my bad, I filled his brain up with too much standard library and how this and that are done to actually sit down and write code and give him a feel for how the libraries all really work, so you can blame me.
···
On Feb 1, 2006, at 7:43 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On Feb 1, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:
Phil Tomson wrote:
In article <43DA42DD.4030907@neurogami.com>,
James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:Quite impressive.
Wow. Kudos to the Seattle.rb folks. It's great when you can move
someone from the "biased against you" camp into the "gee, the
language has some interesting features" camp.Definitely. Although I have to admit that I find the selection of
features Bruce chose a bit strange. Although he mentions blocks this
would rather be something I had at the top of my list. Anyway, let's see
how this develops.Yeah, some of the examples bugged me too, like Array#dump (which is just `puts array`).
Ah well, he tried to learn a little. Have to give points for that.
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant