4 ms·

There are more people in the #haskell channel on Freenode IRC than #clojure, #scala, #lisp, #racket, or #ruby.

rtpg 13y ago
didn't even know that. BTW the people on #haskell are quite active, and nice :) (maybe a pointless counter-example, I once went onto #ruby, and asked about an easy way to make a function name refer to a function( to be able to do things like list map f easily, without the superflous do |x| f x end ), and I got yelled at because I was trying to write "non-ruby code".
- innguest 13y ago
  The Ruby community is very close-minded. I've been a victim of that behavior in #ruby as well. If you asked an equivalent question on #ror (the Rails channel) you'd get more than yelled at - no one would take you seriously from that point on. To answer your question, because methods aren't first-class in Ruby, you can't pass them around the way you want to. I've decided I don't want my languages telling me what I can or can't do when I know what I want to do is a simple matter of making more types of pointers first-class.
  - rtpg 13y ago
    I figured that out later on, that I should probably not think of ruby as functional ( my brain hardwires no parentheses languages to functional languages I think). After which the experience becomes slightly less frustrating
  - jeorgun 13y ago
    You can pass Ruby methods around; the syntax is just ugly, and it isn't really used: def call_on_two fn fn.call 2 end call_on_two 1.method(:+) #=> 3 The problem with [1, 2, 3].map(:function_name) is just that map requires a block, and not a method or proc. A method like that could be easily enough created, though it'd be kind of ugly: module Enumerable def map_fn fn map { |i| method(fn).call i } end end def foo num num + 2 end [1, 2, 3].map_fn :foo #=> [3, 4, 5] I don't know why there isn't an easy way to freely convert between methods, procs, and blocks; it's definitely something the language is missing.
coldtea 13y ago
>There are more people in the #haskell channel on Freenode IRC than #clojure, #scala, #lisp, #racket, or #ruby. Which doesn't mean a thing. How many of them are employed developers working in the language, as opposed to dabblers? Very few professional developers I've known hang on IRC. It's 2014 already.

rtpg 13y ago

didn't even know that. BTW the people on #haskell are quite active, and nice :) (maybe a pointless counter-example, I once went onto #ruby, and asked about an easy way to make a function name refer to a function( to be able to do things like list map f easily, without the superflous do |x| f x end ), and I got yelled at because I was trying to write "non-ruby code".

innguest 13y ago
The Ruby community is very close-minded. I've been a victim of that behavior in #ruby as well. If you asked an equivalent question on #ror (the Rails channel) you'd get more than yelled at - no one would take you seriously from that point on. To answer your question, because methods aren't first-class in Ruby, you can't pass them around the way you want to. I've decided I don't want my languages telling me what I can or can't do when I know what I want to do is a simple matter of making more types of pointers first-class.
- rtpg 13y ago
  I figured that out later on, that I should probably not think of ruby as functional ( my brain hardwires no parentheses languages to functional languages I think). After which the experience becomes slightly less frustrating
- jeorgun 13y ago
  You can pass Ruby methods around; the syntax is just ugly, and it isn't really used: def call_on_two fn fn.call 2 end call_on_two 1.method(:+) #=> 3 The problem with [1, 2, 3].map(:function_name) is just that map requires a block, and not a method or proc. A method like that could be easily enough created, though it'd be kind of ugly: module Enumerable def map_fn fn map { |i| method(fn).call i } end end def foo num num + 2 end [1, 2, 3].map_fn :foo #=> [3, 4, 5] I don't know why there isn't an easy way to freely convert between methods, procs, and blocks; it's definitely something the language is missing.

coldtea 13y ago

>There are more people in the #haskell channel on Freenode IRC than #clojure, #scala, #lisp, #racket, or #ruby. Which doesn't mean a thing. How many of them are employed developers working in the language, as opposed to dabblers? Very few professional developers I've known hang on IRC. It's 2014 already.