Bruce Eckel and Ruby

[Lyndon Samson]

An interesting article. I didn't read it as being con ruby. Just
reiterating what we all know about not understanding a problem until
you've implemented the solution at least once before.

 

[Hal Fulton]

Oh, now that's going a bit over the top don't you think? I would think that
we should actually encourage Mr. Eckel to try out Ruby. We should welcome him
to instead of hanging out a sign that says "No Eckel's allowed!". Afterall,
we're the friendly language newsgroup. If Mr. Eckel comes here with questions
I would hope that we would welcome him and answer them courteously (and no
"see I told you so" type responses either).

Sure. But he's been railing against Ruby for five years now (unless I am
miscounting). When exactly would you expect him to try it?

Besides, his negative attitude seems to indicate he thinks he already *has*
tried it, or why would he be so opposed to it?


Hal

 

[Phil Tomson]

Sure. But he's been railing against Ruby for five years now (unless I am
miscounting). When exactly would you expect him to try it?

I'm not expecting him to at this point, however I don't think we should post a
"keep out Bruce Eckel and this means you!" sign as was suggested by the other
poster.

Besides, his negative attitude seems to indicate he thinks he already *has*
tried it, or why would he be so opposed to it?

Perhaps he has. However, I noticed from reading his rant that he mentions
Rails and then goes on about Python's contenders and mentions Zope and
concludes that Zope is just too complicated. Then he says that he would use
PHP5 for his web programming needs (skipping entirely over Rails it seems - he
doesn't seem to want to even touch it).

At any rate, if Eckel is our Grinch then perhaps we should smother him in
kindness ;-) Invite him to speak at RubyConf, or something like that.
Could be interesting. Basically, I'm thinking that perhaps we should try to
move him out of the 'enemy' column and into the 'friend' column. If we
attack him for attacking us then we'll get nowhere.

Phil

 

[Hal Fulton]

I'm not expecting him to at this point, however I don't think we should post a
"keep out Bruce Eckel and this means you!" sign as was suggested by the other
poster.

I don't think anyone seriously suggested that.

At any rate, if Eckel is our Grinch then perhaps we should smother him in
kindness ;-) Invite him to speak at RubyConf, or something like that.
Could be interesting. Basically, I'm thinking that perhaps we should try to
move him out of the 'enemy' column and into the 'friend' column. If we
attack him for attacking us then we'll get nowhere.

I'm not interested in attacking him, and I hope no one else is. I'd be
as happy to see him here as I would anyone else.


Hal

 

[Bob Hutchison]

While on the surface there seems to be a religious conflict between
the two
groups, perhaps what's really going on is a competition for
resources where
resources in this case are developers.

This is an interesting point that deserves some consideration. This
has more than once crossed my mind.

I've got a few thoughts on this but can't quite express them
intelligibly yet. I suspect some of you will have no problems at all

 

[Austin Ziegler]

Oh, now that's going a bit over the top don't you think? I would
think that we should actually encourage Mr. Eckel to try out Ruby. We
should welcome him to instead of hanging out a sign that says "No
Eckel's allowed!". After all, we're the friendly language newsgroup.
If Mr. Eckel comes here with questions I would hope that we would
welcome him and answer them courteously (and no "see I told you so"
type responses either).

Better to win friends than to make enemies.

Phil, I think you're misreading what I wrote. If I thought that Mr Eckel
would use and like Ruby, I'd want him in our camp. But based on reading
a *lot* of his railing against Ruby in the time that I've been a
Rubyist, Ruby would make him very unhappy as a developer.

We don't need -- or want -- people who use Ruby because they have to. We
want people who use Ruby because it truly makes them happy. I've known
some developers who are happier than pigs in shit when they're
programming in C or C++. Ruby would make them very unhappy.

Why, exactly, should we encourage them to use Ruby? I'm not wanting to
make Ruby an exclusive club. I'm wanting people to find the same joy
that I find in Ruby; if they're not going to find it *in* Ruby, they
should find it in a language that makes them happier.

-austin

 

[Jim Freeze]

We want people who use Ruby because it truly makes them
happy. I've known some developers who are happier than
pigs in sh*t when they're programming in C or C++. Ruby
would make them very unhappy.

Does this get quote of the week?

 

[Hugh Sasse]

I don't think the idea is as clever as you think, for example, how can
dnA( ?asrev-eciv ro thgir-ot-tfel morf daer ot deen uoy fi tceted uoy
how will the computer?) Actually, I can't see of a good reason to do
.yllaunam etirw uoy fi ssel dnah ruoy gnivom naht rehto ti

The tactile writing system known as Moon was designed to work like
that. It had guide lines like giant parentheses joining line ends
to show you the flow. RNIB removed this feature because they wanted
it to be more like print. Moon is more bulky than braille, but this
was one really good feature in its favour.

 

[Chad Perrin]

That's all the end ... at least they are BOTH taking away from the Perl
community & the other static/compiled languages out there ...

What's up with the "hate Perl and static languages" routine? I like
Perl, and I still use Perl. Both Perl and Ruby coexist quite happily in
my skillset.

 

[Chad Perrin]

It would indeed be a mistake to overlook it, but I don't see the facts
supporting the conclusion.

Mr. Eckel is a strong critic of Java, particularly in the area of
checked exceptions and generics. Back when I was actually teaching Java
(6 or so years ago), his book "Thinking in Java" was one the few books
that was able to present the language without being "gushy" about it.
He frequently pointed out warts in the language. He is also an advocate
of dynamic typing over static typing and written several good articles
supporting that position. And finally, he a big fan and advocate of
Python, one of those "free, easy to learn, rewards mastery, and has
flocks of eager devotees who want to share their knowledge for free"
languages.

In short, to accuse him of being short sighted with respect to other
languages because he has a vested interest in teaching Java needs to
ignore the fact that he never been slow to critisize Java in the past
when he sees problems.

And finally, his blog entry is less about supporting Java, and more
asking the question of why Ruby over Python.

I think there's a middle ground here:

It looks to me like the way Eckel is approaching this, he sees what he
perceives to be an overreaction to Ruby, and is overreacting to it in
turn. He doesn't seem interested in learning for himself what there is
to like about Ruby over Python, just in making a case against the
statements he's already seen about what there is to like about it.

Like I said, a little overreaction, I think. If there are Ruby
hyperenthusiasts, he seems to be a Ruby hypoenthusiast.

 

[Chad Perrin]

Ruby kicks Cobol's ass!

So much for controversy.

 

[Chad Perrin]

I don't think the idea is as clever as you think, for example, how can
dnA( ?asrev-eciv ro thgir-ot-tfel morf daer ot deen uoy fi tceted uoy
how will the computer?) Actually, I can't see of a good reason to do
.yllaunam etirw uoy fi ssel dnah ruoy gnivom naht rehto ti

. . and how useless is that, when pretty much all my "writing" is done
with a keyboard anyway?

 

[Chad Perrin]

There are two things that I think python got absolutely *right*:
One is Python's ternary expressions ("if 0 < x < 10:"), which
have functional equivalents in Ruby. The other is significant
whitespace.

Glad ya think so. I find it obnoxious, and it contributes to an
appearance to the source that makes my eyes bleed. It detracts from
visual symmetry and makes everything look unfinished to me.

That's just me, though -- just like your impression that it's "right" is
just you.

 

[Szymon Drejewicz]

Bruce Eckel is just goodselling-books-maker rather than guru for coders.

 

[tony summerfelt]

Hal Fulton wrote on 12/20/2005 3:33 PM:

<sigh>

I really don't understand the point of this. If you like Python, use it.
If you like Ruby, use it. I am in the latter category.

i usually get slammed for pointing out the following (my hatemail, and
spam always go way up)

in my opinion it seems like python people just aren't happy with: "if
you like python, use python. if you like ruby, use ruby." or "add BOTH
python and ruby in your toolbox"

i think the above is sage advice, but in my year in python land: you
used python exclusively (because it was the best). no need to use any
other language. they weren't interested comparisons. if <blank>
language had a feature that python didn't then that feature was
"useless", "implemented wrong", or "this is the way we do that in
python, it's the best way to do it."

i think the best way to compare the two languages is to learn them. i
used python for about a year, and i've used ruby now, for 2 years or so.

i came from a perl background so ruby was relatively easy to pick up.
but i also like and use tcl/tk on a regular basis. i don't use python
anymore because there is ruby

the choice for me was easy because it was so clear.

as an aside, my all time favorite feature in ruby is the threading i
don't care if it's native or not. i tend to overuse threads, if a
program can be sped up at all with threads, i use them.

 

[tony summerfelt]

Hal Fulton wrote on 12/20/2005 3:33 PM:

As for significant whitespace -- surely it's a matter of opinion whether
this is the "right" way or not. One can make arguments in both directions.
I was initially drawn to the idea, but after playing with it, I found it
had its drawbacks.

i'll say. when one space too many or too few can mean time spent
hunting it down to make a program work i think it's a serious design
flaw in a language.

near the end of my python experience i found my self using console
based editors so i could see the spacing a lot easier.

 

[Steve Litt]

Hal Fulton wrote on 12/20/2005 3:33 PM:

i'll say. when one space too many or too few can mean time spent
hunting it down to make a program work i think it's a serious
design flaw in a language.

That's why I use tabs and only tabs for indentation, in any
language. You can set Vim or enscript to make a tabstop ever 3
columns, but there's no way to mistakenly put too few or too many.

I think spaces are OK also, but when people start mixing tabs and
spaces, I just gotta scream.

SteveT

Steve Litt
http://www.troubleshooters.com
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Bob Showalter]

That's why I use tabs and only tabs for indentation, in any
language.

Oh Lord, lets not go there... ;-)

 

[Jeff Wood]

------=_Part_1626_30726595.1135277257015
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

ha +1

j.

Oh Lord, lets not go there... ;-)

--
"Remember. Understand. Believe. Yield! -> http://ruby-lang.org"

Jeff Wood

------=_Part_1626_30726595.1135277257015--

 

[Nikolai Weibull]

[stuff that I haven=E2=80=99t written, and really doesn=E2=80=99t relate =
to what I
wrote in the first place]

Why is my name still in this?

nikolai

--=20
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}