(unknown)

ruby-talk
1

Sorry if this is old hat to most of you, but I just discovered these
side-by-side ruby and perl scripts from the new Japanese-language Ruby
for Perl Users book mentioned by maki at ruby-lang.org/ja/ a couple of
weeks ago (5/14).

They are suitable for perusal by the linguistically feeble, such as
myself:

ftp://ftp2.ohmsha.co.jp/link/4-274-06515-4/script.zip

toc:
ch02:
autovivi.rb – this makes a hash of "hello world"
dir1.rb
each1.pl
each1.rb
each2.rb
each3.rb
foreach1.pl
func1.pl
func1.rb
func2.pl
func3.pl
func4.pl
gc1.rb
grep0.rb
grep1.rb
hash1.rb
map1.pl
map1.rb
markov0.rb
markov1.rb
markov2.rb
marshal1.rb
splice1.rb
strlu1.pl
strlu1.rb
thread1.pl
thread1.rb
while1.pl
while1.rb
while2.pl
while2.rb
while3.pl
while3.rb
while4.pl
while4.rb
while5.rb
while6.rb
ch03:
defnest.rb
defproc.rb
proc1.rb
proc2.rb
proc3.rb
quicki:
changes.rbx
edit.rbx
s0.rb
save.rbx
search.rbx
template.html
wiki.rbx
quicki-d:
c.cgi
error.rhtml
pages:
WelcomeVisitors
q1.rb
quicki.rb
quickic.rb
quickid.rb
s3.rb
template.html
ch04:
bench1.rb
bench2.rb
fold.rb
herit1.rb
herit2.rb
ch05:
div:
app.rb
base.erb
div.rbx
todo.erb
todo.rb
human.pl
human.rb
roman.rb
staff1.pl
staff1.rb
staff2.pl
staff2.rb
taint1.pl
taint1.rb
todo.rb

···

–
David C. Oshel mailto:dcoshel@mac.com
Cedar Rapids, Iowa http://homepage.mac.com/dcoshel
"Language shapes the way we think and determines what we can think
about." – Benjamin Lee Whorf [N.B.: The opinion expressed belongs to
its source, and is not at all that of the management. The management
is a devotee of Noam Chomsky’s Universal Base Hypothesis, which states
that language evolved in the brains and vocal accoutrements of apes,
who possessed advanced skills of perception, perhaps driven by leopard
predation and territorial songfests, long before the advent of
language. Whorf is merely indulging in magical thinking.]

2

Sorry if this is old hat to most of you, but I just discovered these
side-by-side ruby and perl scripts from the new Japanese-language Ruby
for Perl Users book mentioned by maki at オブジェクト指向スクリプト言語 Ruby a couple of
weeks ago (5/14).

That’s fascinating! I wish we had an English translation
of this book…

They are suitable for perusal by the linguistically feeble, such as
myself:

I’m pretty feeble in Perl myself. I’ll hang onto
this link.

“Language shapes the way we think and determines what we can think
about.” – Benjamin Lee Whorf [N.B.: The opinion expressed belongs to
its source, and is not at all that of the management. The management
is a devotee of Noam Chomsky’s Universal Base Hypothesis, which states
that language evolved in the brains and vocal accoutrements of apes,
who possessed advanced skills of perception, perhaps driven by leopard
predation and territorial songfests, long before the advent of
language. Whorf is merely indulging in magical thinking.]

Ha… tagline with a disclaimer. Cool.

OT: Perhaps Whorf and Chomsky could both be right. Perhaps there
is a kind of feedback loop in the evolution of language and of
human thought. Whorf has his flaws; I’ll be the first to admit
that. But I always liked him for his highly analytical thinking,
his original ideas, his creativity, his enthusiasm, and his way
with words. And I liked him because of the novelty of a chemical
engineer who is a dilettante in linguistics, to the point that
he is almost remembered as a real linguist.

Even more OT: Whorf in a sense played a joke on the world. People
in the humanities and such are always trying to bring physics (etc.)
into their own fields of literature and social studies and such,
drawing wild conclusions and meaningless generalizations from
Goedel’s theorem, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Whorf in a real
sense did it backwards. He dragged real physics into the more
subjective field of linguistics (in his comments on the Hopi language)
and almost got away with it. At least he was more credible than my
literature professor who tried to apply the Uncertainty Principle to
20th century literature.

And as for magical thinking: Ha. You say that like it’s a bad thing. :wink:

Cheers,
Hal

[Those who respond, if any, to the OT part should do it offlist. I have
been criticized once or twice for my rambling.]

···

----- Original Message -----
From: “David C. Oshel” dcoshel@mac.com
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:49 AM

3

From: “David C. Oshel” dcoshel@mac.com
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:49 AM

Sorry if this is old hat to most of you, but I just discovered these
side-by-side ruby and perl scripts from the new Japanese-language Ruby
for Perl Users book mentioned by maki at オブジェクト指向スクリプト言語 Ruby a couple of
weeks ago (5/14).

That’s fascinating! I wish we had an English translation
of this book…

I’d love to do it, but my technical vocabulary is too pathetic for
public consumption. I’m working on it…

…

… heh … see below :slight_smile:

“Language shapes the way we think and determines what we can think
about.” – Benjamin Lee Whorf [N.B.: The opinion expressed belongs to
its source, and is not at all that of the management. The management
is a devotee of Noam Chomsky’s Universal Base Hypothesis, which states
that language evolved in the brains and vocal accoutrements of apes,
who possessed advanced skills of perception, perhaps driven by leopard
predation and territorial songfests, long before the advent of
language. Whorf is merely indulging in magical thinking.]

Ha… tagline with a disclaimer. Cool.

OT: Perhaps Whorf and Chomsky could both be right. Perhaps there
is a kind of feedback loop in the evolution of language and of
human thought. Whorf has his flaws; I’ll be the first to admit
that. But I always liked him for his highly analytical thinking,
his original ideas, his creativity, his enthusiasm, and his way
with words. And I liked him because of the novelty of a chemical
engineer who is a dilettante in linguistics, to the point that
he is almost remembered as a real linguist.

Even more OT: Whorf in a sense played a joke on the world. People
in the humanities and such are always trying to bring physics (etc.)
into their own fields of literature and social studies and such,
drawing wild conclusions and meaningless generalizations from
Goedel’s theorem, …

Oops. Guilty as charged. I’ve always thought the first meaningful
corollary to Goedel’s Theorm is the observation that no system of
thought is immune from parody.

… relativity, and quantum mechanics. Whorf in a real
sense did it backwards. He dragged real physics into the more
subjective field of linguistics (in his comments on the Hopi language)
and almost got away with it. At least he was more credible than my
literature professor who tried to apply the Uncertainty Principle to
20th century literature.

Usually, it’s called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (
http://venus.va.com.au/suggestion/sapir.html et al.), and because I was
forced to encounter this notion at a Land Grant University in 1968, it
caused me no end of pointless pink difficulties ontologizing
somnolently… I tend to lump it with Carlos Castaneda’s lesser works
and Jack Kerouac’s longer Tijuana paper rolls.

And as for magical thinking: Ha. You say that like it’s a bad thing. :wink:

Not a “bad” thing. Just indistinguishable from paranoid schizophrenia
(or pretraumatic hyperaesthesia, at least) in my experience… Urrk.
B.T.D.T.

[Those who respond, if any, to the OT part should do it offlist. I have
been criticized once or twice for my rambling.]

You’d think us ruby hackers could come up with a good syntax, so when
it comes time to compile this compendium onto CD’s the stuff between
(say) “” and “<!OffTopic>” would disappear into the
alt.fan.hegelian.philosophy bucket or sumpthin.

···

On Fri, 30 May 2003 03:22:02 +0900, Hal E. Fulton wrote:

----- Original Message -----

–
David C. Oshel mailto:dcoshel@mac.com
Cedar Rapids, Iowa http://homepage.mac.com/dcoshel/
“Tension, apprehension and dissension have begun!” - Duffy Wyg&,
in Alfred Bester’s The Demolished Man