I'm trying to understand symbols. Not what they are, but rather why Ruby
has them. They are neat and I use them, but effectively you end up with
the same thing using plain strings, right? So why extend the language? I
get the feeling I'm missing a big point so please help me out by
pointing it out to me.
On Apr 3, 2006, at 3:06 PM, Hans-Eric Grönlund wrote:
I'm trying to understand symbols. Not what they are, but rather why Ruby
has them. They are neat and I use them, but effectively you end up with
the same thing using plain strings, right? So why extend the language? I
get the feeling I'm missing a big point so please help me out by
pointing it out to me.
I'm trying to understand symbols. Not what they are, but rather why Ruby has them. They are neat and I use them, but effectively you end up with the same thing using plain strings, right?
No. There was a lengthy thread about Symbols here on ruby-talk not too long ago, so perhaps you'll want to search the archives.
So why extend the language? I get the feeling I'm missing a big point so please help me out by pointing it out to me.
See also
···
--
James Britt
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing."
- A. Perlis
On Apr 3, 2006, at 3:06 PM, Hans-Eric Grönlund wrote:
I'm trying to understand symbols. Not what they are, but rather why Ruby
has them. They are neat and I use them, but effectively you end up with
the same thing using plain strings, right? So why extend the language? I
get the feeling I'm missing a big point so please help me out by
pointing it out to me.
Hi,
See:
* [Symbols Are Not Immutable Strings][1]
* [Many previous discussions on the list][2]