(Sorry if this has come up already, I’m not all up to date)
Well, maybe I’m being harsh, but I had a look in Wired july 2002, red
cover yelling “The Next Intel”.
'lo and behold on pages 60-61, a huge programming language graph.
Ruby has incoming arrows from Eiffel, Smalltalk-80, Python as well as from
Sather. So far so good, I think.
But along comes a notes box on page 61 and states that
Ruby is “A hardware description language”…
… and I thought that graph was a good sign at first
···
–
([ Kent Dahl ]/)_ ~[ http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kentda/ ]/~
))_student/(( _d L b_/ NTNU - graduate engineering - 4. year )
( __õ|õ// ) )Industrial economics and technological management(
_/ö____/ (_engineering.discipline=Computer::Technology)
Well, maybe I’m being harsh, but I had a look in Wired july 2002, red
cover yelling “The Next Intel”.
'lo and behold on pages 60-61, a huge programming language graph.
Ruby has incoming arrows from Eiffel, Smalltalk-80, Python as well as from
Sather. So far so good, I think.
But along comes a notes box on page 61 and states that
Ruby is “A hardware description language”…
(Sorry if this has come up already, I’m not all up to date)
Well, maybe I’m being harsh, but I had a look in Wired july 2002, red
cover yelling “The Next Intel”.
'lo and behold on pages 60-61, a huge programming language graph.
Ruby has incoming arrows from Eiffel, Smalltalk-80, Python as well as from
Sather. So far so good, I think.
But along comes a notes box on page 61 and states that
Ruby is “A hardware description language”…
… and I thought that graph was a good sign at first
A regrettable but not totally incomprehensible mistake.
Someone did his research on the web.
There was/is in fact an older Ruby that was a hardware
description language.
Hal Fulton
···
----- Original Message -----
From: kentda@stud.ntnu.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 4:18 PM
Subject: Wired magazine being their usual acurate self…
Subject: Wired magazine being their usual acurate self…
(Sorry if this has come up already, I’m not all up to date)
Well, maybe I’m being harsh, but I had a look in Wired july 2002, red
cover yelling “The Next Intel”.
'lo and behold on pages 60-61, a huge programming language graph.
Ruby has incoming arrows from Eiffel, Smalltalk-80, Python as
well as from
Sather. So far so good, I think.
But along comes a notes box on page 61 and states that
Ruby is “A hardware description language”…
I think the problem is that Grady Booch, who did the graph, lives in a
C/C++/Java world. His experience and the practices of the customers
of Rational don’t necessarily include Ruby.
Nice guy, talented and all, but not too into dynamic languages.
···
On Friday 05 July 2002 02:18 pm, kentda@stud.ntnu.no wrote:
(Sorry if this has come up already, I’m not all up to date)
Well, maybe I’m being harsh, but I had a look in Wired july 2002,
red cover yelling “The Next Intel”.
'lo and behold on pages 60-61, a huge programming language graph.
Ruby has incoming arrows from Eiffel, Smalltalk-80, Python as well
as from Sather. So far so good, I think.
But along comes a notes box on page 61 and states that
Ruby is “A hardware description language”…
… and I thought that graph was a good sign at first
Well, atleast I guess I should be thankful that there wasn’t a line from
Visual Basic (which was partially based on something also dubbed Ruby)
However, I’m starting to wonder whether journalists read what they write.
It really irks me that they manage to have a “linage continues”-line
from Sather 0.1 noted as an “Interactive object-oriented language”,
and not start scratching their heads on how that lineage can be passed
on by a hardware description language…
