6 ms·

I am confident people might believe something they don't understand to be an insult..

• jacques_chester 14y ago
  I don't follow you.
  • tinco 14y ago
    I was hinting ignorance might be the cause of your confident dismissal of Ruby :) @btilly: it seems as though that would be a correct assertion. @jacques_chester: I did not know that, does he have a piece on programming languages he found disconcerting? Did he prefer Church over Turing? I don't think programming languages can really go beyond being strictly mathematical though..
    • jacques_chester 14y ago
      Ruby is probably the language I've written more code in than anything else. I quite like it; I find myself chafing in lots of other languages. My point is that Dijkstra was kinda big on programming-as-strict-mathematics; a loosey-goosey super flexible language like Ruby would not have met with his favour, IMO.
    • btilly 14y ago
      I think that ignorance of Dijkstra may be the cause of your confident appraisal that he would have liked Ruby.
    • jacques_chester 14y ago
      His wikiquotes page will give you a flavour of his thought: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra But especially "On the Cruelty of Really Teaching Computer Science". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cruelty_of_Really_Teaching_Computer_Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cruelty_of_Really_Teaching_...