4 ms·

As much as I love C++, it's getting a bit too hairy for my taste. Instead of making things more simple, it's just getting more complex. I'd love a statically t

As much as I love C++, it's getting a bit too hairy for my taste. Instead of making things more simple, it's just getting more complex. I'd love a statically typed Ruby, for example. Duby looks interesting, but a bit young and incomplete to use.

lonestar 17y ago
Have you played with Scala? It reminds me in some ways of Ruby, you might find it to your liking.
- samstokes 17y ago
  I've also found Scala has a similar feel to Ruby, which is a bit surprising given Scala's static type system and Ruby's extreme dynamicness. Here are a few similarities: * concise syntax (Ruby via dynamic typing, Scala via type inference) * hybrid OO-functional (Ruby isn't normally described this way, but it has a lot of functional idioms built in, and unlike in Python, they're often considered good style) * dogmatic wrt the OO part (i.e. every value is an object, unlike Java or C++) * TIMTOWTDI (should my Scala higher-order function take a function or a lazy value?) * DSL fetishism * very flexible and adaptable syntax, which (for both languages) is a two-edged sword - esp. things like Ruby's optional method invocation, and Scala's optional dot * both allow adding methods to existing classes (Scala fakes this via implicit conversions, but I believe it's idiomatic)
  - bensummers 17y ago
    I've had a look at Scala, but not so much as to actually start writing code. But it does look promising. http://macstrac.blogspot.com/2009/04/scala-as-long-term-replacement-for.html http://macstrac.blogspot.com/2009/04/scala-as-long-term-repl... The thing which appeals about Duby is that it uses the underlying Java typesystem, and doesn't have a runtime library. If it ever gets finished, it can be as fast as any Java code, and there's been a lot of effort put into making Java code fast.
fauigerzigerk 17y ago
Don't you think the initializers make things simpler?
- bensummers 17y ago
  I've never really had a problem with initializers in C++. I suppose it comes down to programming style, and I try to avoid complex initialisations by using nice simple classes with only one constructor.

lonestar 17y ago

Have you played with Scala? It reminds me in some ways of Ruby, you might find it to your liking.

samstokes 17y ago
I've also found Scala has a similar feel to Ruby, which is a bit surprising given Scala's static type system and Ruby's extreme dynamicness. Here are a few similarities: * concise syntax (Ruby via dynamic typing, Scala via type inference) * hybrid OO-functional (Ruby isn't normally described this way, but it has a lot of functional idioms built in, and unlike in Python, they're often considered good style) * dogmatic wrt the OO part (i.e. every value is an object, unlike Java or C++) * TIMTOWTDI (should my Scala higher-order function take a function or a lazy value?) * DSL fetishism * very flexible and adaptable syntax, which (for both languages) is a two-edged sword - esp. things like Ruby's optional method invocation, and Scala's optional dot * both allow adding methods to existing classes (Scala fakes this via implicit conversions, but I believe it's idiomatic)
- bensummers 17y ago
  I've had a look at Scala, but not so much as to actually start writing code. But it does look promising. http://macstrac.blogspot.com/2009/04/scala-as-long-term-replacement-for.html http://macstrac.blogspot.com/2009/04/scala-as-long-term-repl... The thing which appeals about Duby is that it uses the underlying Java typesystem, and doesn't have a runtime library. If it ever gets finished, it can be as fast as any Java code, and there's been a lot of effort put into making Java code fast.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago

Don't you think the initializers make things simpler?

bensummers 17y ago
I've never really had a problem with initializers in C++. I suppose it comes down to programming style, and I try to avoid complex initialisations by using nice simple classes with only one constructor.