4 ms·
I'm also confused by your dislike of operators and syntax sugar. These are some of the things that made Ruby so popular, and the sort of ham-stringing that mak
by wildjim 17y ago
I'm also confused by your dislike of operators and syntax sugar. These are some of the things that made Ruby so popular, and the sort of ham-stringing that make Python and Java so long-winded and painful...
If you're worried about n00bs shooting themselves in the foot, that's really a matter of training -- you wouldn't give all soldiers single-shot rifles just to make sure the new recruits couldn't lose control of an automatic. Later on, those "technical excellences" may be exactly the right spanner for the bolt.
- suvike 17y agoCare to elaborate? I've never considered Python to be nearly as 'long-winded and painful' as Java.
- wildjim 17y agoMore "long-winded and painful" compared with Ruby, Perl, LISP, Haskell, among others.
- ubernostrum 17y agoI work with Python for a living. Once upon a time I worked with Perl for a living. And I've seen a fair bit of Ruby. And in my experience, you're simply wrong; aside from toy programs written for golfing or obfuscation contests, there really doesn't seem to be a significant difference, and many of the "concise" features of, say, Perl tend to be frowned on for real-world use because of the impact they have on the ability of others to read, understand and maintain the code. As for Lisp, well, "concise" Lisp programs tend to remind me of stuff that comes out of the demoscene, where the headline is "look at this awesome demo in 4k!" but it actually relies on hundreds of megabytes' worth of graphics APIs. Lisp seems to be the same way: for every short piece of amazing Lisp code, there seems to be a corresponding huge chunk of functions and macros backing it.