Woulda, coulda, shoulda! Login and vote now.
By hklog
via harkal.sylphis3d.com
Published: Mar 06 2007 / 19:57
"...However while focused on the Rails framework and the 10m tutorials that require minimal coding, I actually didn’t learn a lot about the language itself. Not until last week that I got some free time to invest in learning Ruby. The outcome was : This language is not for me. It’s too superstitious!..."
Comments
porta complained ago:
porta reported this link as lame on 03/06/2007 @ 11:26:11
"A programming language does not have to be English and we certainly don’t have to write code that is understood by a non-programmer"
bull.shit
bigbold complained ago:
bigbold reported this link as lame on 03/07/2007 @ 01:44:37
A stunningly nonsensical and misguided post.
"I’m pretty sure that if we present the above code to 100 programmers (users of Ruby or not) will think that method is a reference to the method a.abs."
Right, and I'm "pretty sure" if I showed 'a = 100' to 100 programmers, they'd all think a was actually equal to 973.
cossins complained ago:
cossins reported this link as lame on 03/07/2007 @ 02:44:12
Yeah, I'll second the other complaints. Ruby is not a C-style language, so the fact that method calls (which aren't method calls at all, but messages being passed) don't necessarily have brackets is just something any programmer will learn as they learn the language.
Personally, I come from a C background, but I had absolutely no problem understanding the code...
Of course you can always make people misunderstand your code by obfuscating the variable names (such as using the name "method" for something that is the response of a message).
- Simon
rubyminer complained ago:
rubyminer reported this link as lame on 03/07/2007 @ 02:50:34
This is a typical example of a post which ends up with the conclusion that if a programming language gives you great freedom then it's automatically evil since you will blow your head off.
Yes, Ruby (and Haskell and Erlang and Lisp and Scala and...) is powerful and gives you great freedom - if you cant' harness it and you would like to limit yourself with a programming language that is obvious for all the 100 hypothetical programmers from your example, don't use Ruby or similar...
harkal replied ago:
Have you ever considered that this freedom might be the reason why software engineering has so much problems with scalability? You think that archicting and engineering bridges and massive buildings having 1000 of people working on them, comes from freedom to shot your own foot? Think again...
Lowell Heddings replied ago:
harkal / hklog,
Please stick with a single account. It's not right to post this link with one of your accounts and then respond to critical comments with another account.
The community has spoken, and I suspect will continue to do so. Perhaps you should listen.
bigbold replied ago:
Yes, because a lot of coders are wageslaves with little passion for the craft and require straitjacket-esque languages and techniques to keep them in check. That doesn't make it right though.
harkal replied ago:
It depends on what you are trying to do. It is a fact that you cant have a team full of masters. Most people are wageslaves. Building a bridge requires lots of wageslaves. You cant make a bridge with architects only. So in software engineering that we need to scale the project, its right. Maybe it is not in computer science where your goals are different...
bigbold replied ago:
You're right that there's a class of coder who does end up doing most of the software development work out there.. but I'd expect those developers to actually know and be proficient in the language used. Would you let a veterinary surgeon give you bowel surgery? Why would you let someone with no knowledge of Ruby work on a Ruby project with no training? You wouldn't (unless you were a really bad manager).
rajum complained ago:
rajum reported this link as inaccurate on 03/07/2007 @ 07:27:00
rajum replied ago:
Has no merit at all.
cha0sth30ry replied ago:
I like and use Ruby / Ruby on Rails.
This article is a valid complaint about Ruby's weakness and strength: inconsistency or "many ways to do one thing". I think this stems from Ruby being a spiritual successor to Perl...
Anyways every language has a weakness: Python - OO was an afterthought that was just tacked on, and it shows, Java - static typing and verbosity; the list goes on for every language. Listing a language's weakness doesn't mean it sucks. It just means some people can deal with it, while others can't; it's all about personal taste. Programming is a percentage art after all...
mezmo replied ago:
I've poked at Ruby a few times, not even enough to be dangerous with it, most of my current life spent dealing with the vagaries of Java, and while I have several reservations that I would need addressed before I was ready to join the "Javas dead, Ruby uber allen" crowd this in no way makes any credible arguments one way or another. Specifically.
a = -5 Ok, I'm assigning variable a a value of 5.
method = a.abs Kewl! a is an object, = is overloaded to call setValue, and a has an absolute value method, schweet!!
Nothing any recovering C++ addict wouldn't get in a heartbeat ;)
JMHO
telimtor complained ago:
telimtor reported this link as lame on 03/07/2007 @ 07:43:47
Voters For This Link (14)
Voters Against This Link (0)