Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
for those interested.
* Why Not Ruby?
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html
plain text version follows:
--------------------------------------
Why Not Ruby?
Xah Lee, 2008-12-31
Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
The articles i read in detail are:
* Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)¨J. Gives general overview.
* Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes"
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/
* Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10.
http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour
The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The
"Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete
intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't
teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it
because his opinions i respect.
Q: Will you learn Ruby?
No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study,
functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far
more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's
also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or
power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby.
Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant?
Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level
lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't
think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript,
Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal
spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it
based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than
Scheme, and probably same as Javascript.
I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
that.
Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience?
No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl,
Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge
of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time
(roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the
time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like
Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo-
jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely
nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp,
Scheme lisp.
Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then?
Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical
utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all
heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a
academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs
such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot
more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc.
Q: Do you condemn Ruby?
No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See:
Proliferation of Computing Languages.
On 31 Dic, 18:55, Xah Lee <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
> for those interested.
>
> * Why Not Ruby?
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html
>
> plain text version follows:
> --------------------------------------
>
> Why Not Ruby?
>
> Xah Lee, 2008-12-31
>
> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
>
> The articles i read in detail are:
>
> * Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)¨J. Gives general overview.
>
> * Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes"http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/
>
> * Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10.http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour
>
> The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The
> "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete
> intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't
> teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it
> because his opinions i respect.
>
> Q: Will you learn Ruby?
>
> No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
> than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study,
> functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far
> more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's
> also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or
> power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby.
>
> Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant?
>
> Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level
> lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't
> think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript,
> Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal
> spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it
> based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than
> Scheme, and probably same as Javascript.
>
> I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
> code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
> that.
>
> Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience?
>
> No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl,
> Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge
> of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time
> (roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the
> time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like
> Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo-
> jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely
> nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp,
> Scheme lisp.
>
> Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then?
>
> Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical
> utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all
> heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a
> academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs
> such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot
> more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc.
>
> Q: Do you condemn Ruby?
>
> No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
> languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
> are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See:
> Proliferation of Computing Languages.
This is not a Ruby group.
I recommend you to go waste your time there.
--- Giampaolo
http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib
Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> This is not a Ruby group.
> I recommend you to go waste your time there.
That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
irrelevant news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's best
to just filter the guy's posts.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
Tim Greer <···@burlyhost.com> writes:
> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>
>> This is not a Ruby group.
>> I recommend you to go waste your time there.
>
> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
> irrelevant news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's best
> to just filter the guy's posts.
No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.
How is a comparison article not relevant when he is trying to stimulate
discussion about alternative languages for modern development? Most news
readers feature a kill thread command if you are not interested in the
content. Certainly less extreme or ignorant than killing all posts from
someone who clearly has interesting things to say about development
practises and tools.
Richard Riley wrote:
>
> Tim Greer <···@burlyhost.com> writes:
>
>> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>>
>>> This is not a Ruby group.
>>> I recommend you to go waste your time there.
>>
>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
>> irrelevant news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's best
>> to just filter the guy's posts.
>
> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.
>
> How is a comparison article not relevant when he is trying to
> stimulate discussion about alternative languages for modern
> development? Most news readers feature a kill thread command if you
> are not interested in the content. Certainly less extreme or ignorant
> than killing all posts from someone who clearly has interesting things
> to say about development practises and tools.
Don't get so wound up because people in groups he cross posts this junk
to actually don't want to see it. This poster is hardly interesting or
offering anything intelligent. This poster has a history of posting
things that he is personally interested in arguing about, and posting
it in groups that are not about the languages he chooses to complain
about. There is no rhyme or reason to post in the Perl news group, for
example, if you're complaining about Ruby. This is not even close to
the first time this has happened, much like his relentless posts about
Mathematica (again, cross posted to several groups, including Perl).
This user has a specific bias and is trolling to get a rise out of
people by picking random languages and trying to cut them down,
claiming *his* opinions (based on lack of insights, ironically) are
superior. He does this often, and always cross posts to several groups
that are completely irrelevant to his argument.
The fact you actually buy into this nonsense, actually doesn't make
anyone else wrong or ignorant for not agreeing with him, or falling for
it. In fact, it means exactly the opposite. If he had something
actually interesting and/or relevant, then his rants would be more
tolerated by users of these groups. However, since he offers none of
those aspects, this is why you see people voice their grievances. Look
at this in its basic element, if you don't believe what people say --
this user didn't post the topic in the most revelant group (being the
ruby group), and each time he goes off on another misguided tangent,
several people prove him wrong, and it doesn't phase him or change
anything -- he just continues to cross post. Like I said, if you think
he's interesting, fine. However, many people don't. Perhaps as you
learn more about programming, development and specific tools and
practices, you'll come to realize this fact as well. In the meantime,
the irony is probably lost when you actually believe he is offering
something of substance, interest or that people whom know better are
somehow ignorant.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
Tim Greer <···@burlyhost.com> writes:
> Richard Riley wrote:
>
>>
>> Tim Greer <···@burlyhost.com> writes:
>>
>>> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is not a Ruby group.
>>>> I recommend you to go waste your time there.
>>>
>>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
>>> irrelevant news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's best
>>> to just filter the guy's posts.
>>
>> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.
>>
>> How is a comparison article not relevant when he is trying to
>> stimulate discussion about alternative languages for modern
>> development? Most news readers feature a kill thread command if you
>> are not interested in the content. Certainly less extreme or ignorant
>> than killing all posts from someone who clearly has interesting things
>> to say about development practises and tools.
>
> Don't get so wound up because people in groups he cross posts this
> junk
Wound up? I am not wound up in any shape or form. I am suggesting the
opposite. It seems you are the one a little wound up. So wound up in
fact you are taking it on yourself to tell people who they should or
should not read.
> to actually don't want to see it. This poster is hardly interesting or
> offering anything intelligent. This poster has a history of posting
> things that he is personally interested in arguing about, and posting
> it in groups that are not about the languages he chooses to complain
> about. There is no rhyme or reason to post in the Perl news group,
> for
You dont seem to think that a comparison article is relevant in the
groups dedicated to the languages he compares too? OK. I do. You are, of
course, welcome to your opinion and I certainly would not tell you who
to read or not read. I would suggest that not everyone woul agree with
you and that telling people who to killfile is not at all constructive.
> example, if you're complaining about Ruby. This is not even close to
> the first time this has happened, much like his relentless posts about
> Mathematica (again, cross posted to several groups, including Perl).
> This user has a specific bias and is trolling to get a rise out of
> people by picking random languages and trying to cut them down,
> claiming *his* opinions (based on lack of insights, ironically) are
> superior. He does this often, and always cross posts to several groups
> that are completely irrelevant to his argument.
You clearly have a personal issue with Xah Lee. Possibly it is better
you killfile him or your spring will over wind :-;
regards,
r.
Richard Riley wrote:
> Tim Greer <···@burlyhost.com> writes:
>
>> Richard Riley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Tim Greer <···@burlyhost.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is not a Ruby group.
>>>>> I recommend you to go waste your time there.
>>>>
>>>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
>>>> irrelevant news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's
>>>> best to just filter the guy's posts.
>>>
>>> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why.
>>>
>>> How is a comparison article not relevant when he is trying to
>>> stimulate discussion about alternative languages for modern
>>> development? Most news readers feature a kill thread command if you
>>> are not interested in the content. Certainly less extreme or
>>> ignorant than killing all posts from someone who clearly has
>>> interesting things to say about development practises and tools.
>>
>> Don't get so wound up because people in groups he cross posts this
>> junk
>
>
> Wound up?
Yes, I'd say that accusing people of bring ignorant and attacking them
for not sharing your view on the irrelevant cross posting and trolling
of the Xah poster, is indeed an indication that you appear to be wound
up. Perhaps you've not seen the posts and threads he's made that I've
seen? Perhaps I've not seen the one's you have? Either way, the one's
I have, have all been either self serving garbage about his own
personal feelings that he attempts to covey as fact with his
overbearing arrogance, or it's simply to attack others for not sharing
his view. I find that ironic. He attacks others, acting belligerent,
and you attack those that simply say he's better ignored.
> I am not wound up in any shape or form.
Then convey that in your attitude when replying to others you don't know
anything about, and try and be civil and not accuse people you don't
know.
> I am suggesting the
> opposite.
Suggesting it by doing exactly what you're saying people should not do?
> It seems you are the one a little wound up.
Nope, I responded to your attempts to provoke an issue, when you accused
myself and others of being "ignorant" for not sharing your view
regarding the Xah poster.
> So wound up in
> fact you are taking it on yourself to tell people who they should or
> should not read.
A suggestion is not an instruction or demand. You listed reasons why
you believed those that didn't agree with you were wrong and ignorant,
and I listed reasons in response to your claim to dispute it.
>> to actually don't want to see it. This poster is hardly interesting
>> or
>> offering anything intelligent. This poster has a history of posting
>> things that he is personally interested in arguing about, and posting
>> it in groups that are not about the languages he chooses to complain
>> about. There is no rhyme or reason to post in the Perl news group,
>> for
>
> You dont seem to think that a comparison article is relevant in the
> groups dedicated to the languages he compares too?
No. Not when it's just his own feelings about the languages. A lot of
people have their personal feelings about various languages, imagine
all of the pollution we'd see if everyone was as arrogant as this guy,
all posting their views as if they are the authority on the matter?
Again, going by that deduction, what do you suppose explains his
failure to consider posting this in the ruby group itself, since that
is the primary (and actually, only) relevant group (dismissing his
personal views)?
> OK. I do.
If you do, that's fine. However, many people in the Perl group, which
I'm seeing this thread, have voiced their issues with this poster's
relentless postings of this nature. I did as well, in this new thread.
> You are,
> of course, welcome to your opinion and I certainly would not tell you
> who to read or not read.
I can appreciate that, and I didn't tell you to do anything though, now
did I?
> I would suggest that not everyone woul agree
> with you and that telling people who to killfile is not at all
> constructive.
Of course I don't expect everyone to agree with me. The poster that
replied displayed annoyance at seeing the off topic, self serving and
trollish post that this Xah poster is known for (at least in this
group), and in response to *that*, I had suggested they don't take him
seriously, and this is "what he does" (in my experience). There's no
reason to read more into it and start claiming people are ignorant for
not agreeing with you. And, I think it's perfectly constructive to
advise someone that this isn't abnormal, and for future reference, to
consider such an option if they are too annoyed by it.
>> example, if you're complaining about Ruby. This is not even close to
>> the first time this has happened, much like his relentless posts
>> about Mathematica (again, cross posted to several groups, including
>> Perl). This user has a specific bias and is trolling to get a rise
>> out of people by picking random languages and trying to cut them
>> down, claiming *his* opinions (based on lack of insights, ironically)
>> are
>> superior. He does this often, and always cross posts to several
>> groups that are completely irrelevant to his argument.
>
> You clearly have a personal issue with Xah Lee.
Not at all. It's not personal. It's a simple observation and opinion
based on my experience seeing his cross posting trolling over the last
few weeks. I didn't accuse you of having a personal issue with me for
not agreeing with my opinion and methods, so perhaps you can consider
the gesture of not making such accusations. They aren't true or
relevant. Yeah, I verbalized (textualized) my displeasure with his
tactics, but that's the end of the matter, really.
> Possibly it is better
> you killfile him or your spring will over wind :-;
Uh huh.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
Richard Riley <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>discussion about alternative languages for modern development? Most news
>readers feature a kill thread command if you are not interested in the
>content. Certainly less extreme or ignorant than killing all posts from
>someone
Thank you for reminding me
*PLONK*
jue
Richard Riley <··········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 01 Jan 2009:
> Tim Greer <···@burlyhost.com> writes:
>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple, irrelevant
>> news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
>
> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why. How is a comparison
> article not relevant when he is trying to stimulate discussion about
> alternative languages for modern development?
Sometimes crossposting can be useful. But you ought to at least be aware
of some of the possible drawbacks, e.g. expressed here:
http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/cross-posting.html
In particular, the usual hope by the poster is that the content is relevant
to the union of people in the different groups, but the actual experience is
that it is often relevant only to the intersection of such people.
And, moreover, that a long cross-posted thread on controversial topics often
winds up with people talking at cross-purposes past each other, because they
don't share enough common values to have a useful conversation.
In particular, the poster that started this thread is well known for adding
far more noise than signal to any discussion, and for showing no interest in
the greater good of any of the communities, but only in his own
glorification.
You labor under the delusion that there is at least good intent here, and the
poster ought to receive the benefit of the doubt. Long prior experience shows
that this hope is misplaced.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own
good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
-- John Stuart Mill, _On Liberty_
Don Geddis wrote:
> Richard Riley <··········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 01 Jan 2009:
>> Tim Greer <···@burlyhost.com> writes:
>>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
>>> irrelevant
>>> news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
>>
>> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why. How is a
>> comparison article not relevant when he is trying to stimulate
>> discussion about alternative languages for modern development?
>
> Sometimes crossposting can be useful. But you ought to at least be
> aware of some of the possible drawbacks, e.g. expressed here:
> http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/cross-posting.html
>
> In particular, the usual hope by the poster is that the content is
> relevant to the union of people in the different groups, but the
> actual experience is that it is often relevant only to the
> intersection of such people.
>
> And, moreover, that a long cross-posted thread on controversial topics
> often winds up with people talking at cross-purposes past each other,
> because they don't share enough common values to have a useful
> conversation.
>
> In particular, the poster that started this thread is well known for
> adding far more noise than signal to any discussion, and for showing
> no interest in the greater good of any of the communities, but only in
> his own glorification.
>
> You labor under the delusion that there is at least good intent here,
> and the
> poster ought to receive the benefit of the doubt. Long prior
> experience shows that this hope is misplaced.
>
> -- Don
Thank you, Don, for outlining the issue far more eloquently than I was
able to. Also, to be clear, I don't think anyone's upset that people
find his posts interesting, but it doesn't make it so for everyone else
(or assign them any ailment if they don't see it that way) --
especially in regard to the other groups he cross posts to (of which
one should have specifically been the ruby group, but I digress.)
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
Tim Greer wrote:
> Don Geddis wrote:
>
>> Richard Riley <··········@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 01 Jan 2009:
>>> Tim Greer <···@burlyhost.com> writes:
>>>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple,
>>>> irrelevant
>>>> news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
>>> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why. How is a
>>> comparison article not relevant when he is trying to stimulate
>>> discussion about alternative languages for modern development?
>> Sometimes crossposting can be useful. But you ought to at least be
>> aware of some of the possible drawbacks, e.g. expressed here:
>> http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/cross-posting.html
>>
>> In particular, the usual hope by the poster is that the content is
>> relevant to the union of people in the different groups, but the
>> actual experience is that it is often relevant only to the
>> intersection of such people.
>>
>> And, moreover, that a long cross-posted thread on controversial topics
>> often winds up with people talking at cross-purposes past each other,
>> because they don't share enough common values to have a useful
>> conversation.
>>
>> In particular, the poster that started this thread is well known for
>> adding far more noise than signal to any discussion, and for showing
>> no interest in the greater good of any of the communities, but only in
>> his own glorification.
>>
>> You labor under the delusion that there is at least good intent here,
>> and the
>> poster ought to receive the benefit of the doubt. Long prior
>> experience shows that this hope is misplaced.
>>
>> -- Don
>
> Thank you, Don, for outlining the issue far more eloquently than I was
> able to. Also, to be clear, I don't think anyone's upset that people
> find his posts interesting, but it doesn't make it so for everyone else
> (or assign them any ailment if they don't see it that way) --
> especially in regard to the other groups he cross posts to
Well said, but why said? Answer: because we all enjoy posting to Usenet
whether it is OT or not.
I am more impressed by the people who have the capacity to ignore
material they find uninteresting. Hint.
> (of which
> one should have specifically been the ruby group, but I digress.)
We have learned the hard way about infestations from that camp, maybe
Xah was doing us all a favor.
kt
I just switched to gnus as my news reader -- I _really_ need to
know how to create a blacklist. I tried googling and couldn't
find anything.
This is terrible :( I have to listen to Xah Lee again :'(
Appreciate any help!
Jerome Baum <·····@jeromebaum.com> writes:
> I just switched to gnus as my news reader -- I _really_ need to
> know how to create a blacklist. I tried googling and couldn't
> find anything.
>
> This is terrible :( I have to listen to Xah Lee again :'(
>
> Appreciate any help!
Never mind:
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/gnus/Blacklists-and-Whitelists.html
Sorry for the useless (cross) post.
Xah Lee wrote:
> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
> for those interested.
>
> * Why Not Ruby?
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html
>
> plain text version follows:
> --------------------------------------
>
> Why Not Ruby?
>
> Xah Lee, 2008-12-31
>
> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
>
> The articles i read in detail are:
>
> * Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)�J. Gives general overview.
>
> * Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes"
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/
>
> * Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10.
> http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour
>
> The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The
> "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete
> intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't
> teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it
> because his opinions i respect.
>
> Q: Will you learn Ruby?
>
> No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
> than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study,
> functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far
> more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's
> also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or
> power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby.
>
> Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant?
>
> Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level
> lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't
> think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript,
> Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal
> spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it
> based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than
> Scheme, and probably same as Javascript.
>
> I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
> code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
> that.
>
> Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience?
>
> No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl,
> Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge
> of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time
> (roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the
> time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like
> Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo-
> jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely
> nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp,
> Scheme lisp.
>
> Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then?
>
> Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical
> utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all
> heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a
> academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs
> such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot
> more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc.
>
> Q: Do you condemn Ruby?
>
> No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
> languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
> are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See:
> Proliferation of Computing Languages.
>
Kenny Tilton, 2008-12-31
Q: Why not Xah's review of Ruby?
>> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
A. Three hours? I've had belches that lasted longer than that. Of
course, a true master can tell a lot in just a few hours of coding with
a new language...
>> The articles i read in detail are:
Q: Read?!
A: That's what he said.
hth,kzo
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>Xah Lee wrote:
>> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
>> for those interested.
>>
>> * Why Not Ruby?
>> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html
>>
>> plain text version follows:
>> --------------------------------------
>>
>> Why Not Ruby?
>>
>> Xah Lee, 2008-12-31
>>
>> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
>>
>> The articles i read in detail are:
>>
>> * Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)�J. Gives general overview.
>>
>> * Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes"
>> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/
>>
>> * Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10.
>> http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour
>>
>> The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The
>> "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete
>> intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't
>> teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it
>> because his opinions i respect.
>>
>> Q: Will you learn Ruby?
>>
>> No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
>> than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study,
>> functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far
>> more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's
>> also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or
>> power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby.
>>
>> Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant?
>>
>> Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level
>> lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't
>> think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript,
>> Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal
>> spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it
>> based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than
>> Scheme, and probably same as Javascript.
>>
>> I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
>> code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
>> that.
>>
>> Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience?
>>
>> No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl,
>> Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge
>> of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time
>> (roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the
>> time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like
>> Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo-
>> jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely
>> nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp,
>> Scheme lisp.
>>
>> Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then?
>>
>> Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical
>> utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all
>> heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a
>> academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs
>> such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot
>> more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc.
>>
>> Q: Do you condemn Ruby?
>>
>> No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
>> languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
>> are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See:
>> Proliferation of Computing Languages.
>>
>
>Kenny Tilton, 2008-12-31
>
>Q: Why not Xah's review of Ruby?
>
>>> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
>
>A. Three hours? I've had belches that lasted longer than that. Of
>course, a true master can tell a lot in just a few hours of coding with
>a new language...
>
>>> The articles i read in detail are:
>
>Q: Read?!
>
>A: That's what he said.
>
>
>hth,kzo
Be carefull what you say. If they pay me I would rip your and Xah's
guts out in a second.
sln
Hey Lee,
I really like your overview of the official Python tut, it's spot on,
and your study of OOP was quite fascinating! I like people who are
honest and not afraid to go up against the status quo, although i will
admit you go a little further than i might at times :). But the world
needs an enema from time to time. "Revolution is my name!"
Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his
insights of languages and tech is fascinating. The man lives in a
world driven by common sense, and you know what they say --"Common
sense is the least most common thing"-- just look around at the
responses here.
I come from a different world than IT, and I thought initially the IT
world would be filled with intelligent, free thinking, and open minded
people... BOY was i wrong! I would not turn my back on these people
for a second, lest you catch a knife in it!
I find it laughable how people hate you so much, but would still take
the time to reply to your post, just so they can call you a troll. You
are not a troll Xah, but your posts do expose the true trolls and
their minions. Instead of engaging in any sort of intellectual
conversation, they spit 3 grade insults and try to discredit you.
There is nothing wrong with a person expressing their opinion on any
subject. Apparently some of you need to get laid and calm down a
little. Xah has just as much right as anyone here to post his
thoughts, even if they are off topic. Look, if you don't like what he
is saying, DON'T F'IN READ IT!
Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are
from my supposed "brothers" here at c.l.py. Just letting you know
there are open minded people out here. I would hate to live in a world
that did not contain an Xah lee.
Keep up the good work my brother, you have much more to give!
Thanks
On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
"Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
more carefully sometimes.
On Jan 1, 2:05 am, Jason Rumney <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>
> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
> more carefully sometimes.
I think if you will consider society as a whole, you will see that
most people don't display much sense at all. "Joe Blow" only cares
about paris hilton, britney spears, or janet jackson wardrobe
malfunctions. The only thing they contribute to society is human
excrement. So --"Common sense is the least most common thing"-- really
means there exists no sense as a commonality.
This can apply to higher educated people too, even Guido. Go and read
Xahs take on the Python official tutorial, you will find your self
agreeing with everything that he says. Guido filled it with so much
fluff and off topic BS, causing the learning process to shut down. The
only kind of person that might find it enjoying would be a fellow
Computer Science Graduate. I did not know it at the time but this
contributed to my late understanding of classes and regexes. And being
such a fanboy of Python and carrying such a high respect for Guido
that is hard for me to say, BUT it is the TRUTH nonetheless. Guido has
no business writing tutorials anymore, WHY you ask. Because he is too
smart, and too much on the inside. He cannot relate to the n00b
pythoneer, he has crossed the Rubicon. Less fluff more simple examples
are the key to quick learning. My love for python has blinded me to
some of the atrocities that exist here. I have many more examples from
the Official-TUT than Xah covered.
Don't take my word, judge for yourself...
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/xlali_skami_cukta.html
here is Xah's take on OOP, very good reading for beginners and
Gurus...
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html
If all Xah did was come here and say "Hey, python sucks donkey
dicks!", i would pay him no mind. But he brings much intelligence, and
vigor to an otherwise boring, and sometimes mindless newsgroup. What i
like about him is his out-side-the-box thinking style. He does not
give in to this BS "Proper Society" wants to push onto us. He is a
real rebel, but WITH a cause! And the cause is to bring common sense
back to a world of fluff an BS jargonisms. I don't always agree with
his thoughts, but most the time he's spot on. Open your min c.l.py.
Lest it close forever.
eliminate the life decline...
its time to change...
can't stay the same...
Revolution is my name!
-Phil Anselmo-
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:50:57 -0800, r wrote:
> If all Xah did was come here and say "Hey, python sucks donkey dicks!",
> i would pay him no mind. But he brings much intelligence, and vigor to
If I had to guess, I would say that Xah signed up for a Gmail account and
is now kissing his own orifices under an alias. Nice try. Please bring
your intelligence and vigor elsewhere.
T
P� Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:38:16 +0100, skrev Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:50:57 -0800, r wrote:
>
>> If all Xah did was come here and say "Hey, python sucks donkey dicks!",
>> i would pay him no mind. But he brings much intelligence, and vigor to
>
> If I had to guess, I would say that Xah signed up for a Gmail account and
> is now kissing his own orifices under an alias. Nice try. Please bring
> your intelligence and vigor elsewhere.
>
> T
A quick check shows that rt8396 is genuinly a python programmer and that
rt8396 is just Fred's Mobile WAP code.
(Jumping to a conclusion without a logical basis is the sign of an
idiot...)
--------------
John Thingstad
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:19:45 +0100, John Thingstad wrote:
> På Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:38:16 +0100, skrev Tamas K Papp
> <······@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:50:57 -0800, r wrote:
>>
>>> If all Xah did was come here and say "Hey, python sucks donkey
>>> dicks!", i would pay him no mind. But he brings much intelligence, and
>>> vigor to
>>
>> If I had to guess, I would say that Xah signed up for a Gmail account
>> and is now kissing his own orifices under an alias. Nice try. Please
>> bring your intelligence and vigor elsewhere.
>
> A quick check shows that rt8396 is genuinly a python programmer and that
> rt8396 is just Fred's Mobile WAP code. (Jumping to a conclusion without
> a logical basis is the sign of an idiot...)
Please document that he is "genuinely" a Python programmer, eg by
references to actual working code in Python written by him -- that would
rule out XL for sure.
What I found is that he was just learning Ruby on Dec 30 [1]. Two days
later XL posts his "review" of Ruby. OTOH, in the link cited above,
there is actual _code_, even if only 8 lines, but that exceeds the amount
of code we have seen from XL by an order of magnitude. So maybe he is a
different person :-)
Tamas
[1] http://www.phwinfo.com/forum/comp-lang-ruby/336378-ruby-noobie-needs-
some-help.html
r <······@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jan 1, 2:05 am, Jason Rumney <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>>
>> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
>> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
>> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
>> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
>> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
>> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
>> more carefully sometimes.
>
> I think if you will consider society as a whole, you will see that
> most people don't display much sense at all. "Joe Blow" only cares
> about paris hilton, britney spears, or janet jackson wardrobe
> malfunctions. The only thing they contribute to society is human
> excrement. So --"Common sense is the least most common thing"-- really
> means there exists no sense as a commonality.
>
> This can apply to higher educated people too, even Guido. Go and read
> Xahs take on the Python official tutorial, you will find your self
> agreeing with everything that he says. Guido filled it with so much
> fluff and off topic BS, causing the learning process to shut down. The
> only kind of person that might find it enjoying would be a fellow
> Computer Science Graduate. I did not know it at the time but this
> contributed to my late understanding of classes and regexes. And being
> such a fanboy of Python and carrying such a high respect for Guido
> that is hard for me to say, BUT it is the TRUTH nonetheless. Guido has
> no business writing tutorials anymore, WHY you ask. Because he is too
> smart, and too much on the inside. He cannot relate to the n00b
> pythoneer, he has crossed the Rubicon. Less fluff more simple examples
> are the key to quick learning. My love for python has blinded me to
> some of the atrocities that exist here. I have many more examples from
> the Official-TUT than Xah covered.
>
> Don't take my word, judge for yourself...
> http://xahlee.org/perl-python/xlali_skami_cukta.html
>
> here is Xah's take on OOP, very good reading for beginners and
> Gurus...
> http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html
>
> If all Xah did was come here and say "Hey, python sucks donkey
> dicks!", i would pay him no mind. But he brings much intelligence, and
> vigor to an otherwise boring, and sometimes mindless newsgroup. What i
> like about him is his out-side-the-box thinking style. He does not
> give in to this BS "Proper Society" wants to push onto us. He is a
> real rebel, but WITH a cause! And the cause is to bring common sense
> back to a world of fluff an BS jargonisms. I don't always agree with
> his thoughts, but most the time he's spot on. Open your min c.l.py.
> Lest it close forever.
Great post and I agree with you 100%.
--
important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday. ~Dennis Gabor, Innovations: Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
Jason Rumney <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>
> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
> more carefully sometimes.
I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
points. And they argue the man because he refuses to be brow beaten by
those who do not like to be criticised or are too think skinned. I
rarely find his posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp
tutorial is far and away better than anything else out there for the
programmer moving to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and
supportive evidence and rarely with "because I'm experienced and thats
the way it is" - something not every one takes the time to do. He is
clearly intelligent, thoughtful and experienced if a little lacking in
finesse at times. The world needs more Xah lees.
--
important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday. ~Dennis Gabor, Innovations: Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
Richard Riley wrote:
> Jason Rumney <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>>
>> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
>> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
>> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
>> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
>> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
>> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
>> more carefully sometimes.
>
> I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
> points. And they argue the man because he refuses to be brow beaten by
> those who do not like to be criticised or are too think skinned. I
> rarely find his posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp
> tutorial is far and away better than anything else out there for the
> programmer moving to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons
> and supportive evidence and rarely with "because I'm experienced and
> thats the way it is" - something not every one takes the time to do.
> He is clearly intelligent, thoughtful and experienced if a little
> lacking in finesse at times. The world needs more Xah lees.
>
You say he's intelligent and interesting, others see it as the opposite.
If you want to read his rants, by all means. However, there have been
many, many posts there this poster was proven wrong. That is when the
poster become more belligerent, off topic, and vulgar. That is not the
actions of an intelligent person that's staying on topic or providing
anything interesting. The only thing I find interesting, is two
anonymous posters from gmail.com rushing to his defense, especially in
light of the fact that few people share your version of this person's
talents. I'm not trying to be mean, but the guy is what people call a
usenet troll. By all means, be his fan, but don't encourage his cross
posting trolling as a means to provoke interesting, intelligent
debating (because he's not and it's absolutely not his intention).
Believe what you want, though, and I'll believe what I know.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
Richard Riley wrote:
> Jason Rumney <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
>> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
>> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
>> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
>> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
>> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
>> more carefully sometimes.
>
> I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
> points.
Precisely, and thus they are the trolls: few of them trim followups, and
all of them try to sound funny or clever in their attacks. Xah has
something to say about technology, like what he says or not. His
attackers just see an open mike and want to hear the sound of their own
voice, which I certainly understand.
And before anyone goes for that old argument from self-reference, the
madding crowd succeeded once in their harrassment of The Xah so
remaining silent is no option.
p,k
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>Xah has
>something to say about technology, like what he says or not.
Unfortunately it's unrelated to the topics the NGs he is spamming.
*PLONK*
jue
On Jan 1, 5:34 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Riley wrote:
> > Jason Rumney <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
> >> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
> >> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
> >> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
> >> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
> >> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
> >> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
> >> more carefully sometimes.
>
> > I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
> > points.
>
> Precisely, and thus they are the trolls: few of them trim followups, and
> all of them try to sound funny or clever in their attacks. Xah has
> something to say about technology, like what he says or not. His
> attackers just see an open mike and want to hear the sound of their own
> voice, which I certainly understand.
>
> And before anyone goes for that old argument from self-reference, the
> madding crowd succeeded once in their harrassment of The Xah so
> remaining silent is no option.
>
> p,k
Good Point,
Starting a new thread is not off topic no matter what subject. I have
never witnessed a time where Xah jumped in the middle of a thread and
started a ruckus(i could be wrong), But i do see many interrupting
Xah's threads or any thread for that matter that they feel is
irrelevant to them. The topic of a thread is it's title. Here, the
title is "Why Not Ruby". I am the only person yet to offer argument
for or against Ruby here.
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Richard Riley wrote:
>> Jason Rumney <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
>>> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
>>> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
>>> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
>>> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
>>> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
>>> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
>>> more carefully sometimes.
>>
>> I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
>> points.
>
> Precisely, and thus they are the trolls: few of them trim followups,
> and all of them try to sound funny or clever in their attacks. Xah has
> something to say about technology, like what he says or not. His
> attackers just see an open mike and want to hear the sound of their
> own voice, which I certainly understand.
>
> And before anyone goes for that old argument from self-reference, the
> madding crowd succeeded once in their harrassment of The Xah so
> remaining silent is no option.
>
> p,k
It's good to see I am not alone in my views on some of the more
aggressive posters who seem to take delight in attacking Xah Lee. I was
wondering if I had backed myself into a corner with no chance of escape
for a moment. I found the comments on his elisp tutorial and reference
particularly offensive and destructive considering I know it to be of at
least some use as I referred to it quite a bit when trying some basic
customisations.
--
important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday. ~Dennis Gabor, Innovations: Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote:
> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far
> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving
> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive
Programmers don't "move" to Elisp. Emacs Lisp is used out of necessity
when you want to program Emacs. No one in his/her right mind would use
it in any other context, as far better alternatives exist (eg CL for
those who like Lisp).
Tamas
Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far
>> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving
>> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive
>
> Programmers don't "move" to Elisp. Emacs Lisp is used out of necessity
> when you want to program Emacs. No one in his/her right mind would use
> it in any other context, as far better alternatives exist (eg CL for
> those who like Lisp).
>
> Tamas
"move to Elisp" was clearly meant as "moving towards it in order to use
it". In this case to modify emacs. And to suggest that jobs of work are
not done in Emacs is ridiculous. I am at a loss to really understand
what you mean here in the context.
--
important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday. ~Dennis Gabor, Innovations: Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
Richard Riley <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote:
>>
>>> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far
>>> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving
>>> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive
>>
>> Programmers don't "move" to Elisp. Emacs Lisp is used out of necessity
>> when you want to program Emacs. No one in his/her right mind would use
>> it in any other context, as far better alternatives exist (eg CL for
>> those who like Lisp).
>>
>> Tamas
>
> "move to Elisp" was clearly meant as "moving towards it in order to use
> it". In this case to modify emacs. And to suggest that jobs of work are
> not done in Emacs is ridiculous. I am at a loss to really understand
> what you mean here in the context.
OK, how about this: Xah's elisp code stinks to high
heaven. His code should not be studied by anybody who actually wants
to actually learn elisp (or anything else).
Raymond Wiker <···@RawMBP.local> writes:
> Richard Riley <··········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote:
>>>
>>>> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far
>>>> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving
>>>> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive
>>>
>>> Programmers don't "move" to Elisp. Emacs Lisp is used out of necessity
>>> when you want to program Emacs. No one in his/her right mind would use
>>> it in any other context, as far better alternatives exist (eg CL for
>>> those who like Lisp).
>>>
>>> Tamas
>>
>> "move to Elisp" was clearly meant as "moving towards it in order to use
>> it". In this case to modify emacs. And to suggest that jobs of work are
>> not done in Emacs is ridiculous. I am at a loss to really understand
>> what you mean here in the context.
>
> OK, how about this: Xah's elisp code stinks to high
> heaven. His code should not be studied by anybody who actually wants
> to actually learn elisp (or anything else).
I found his tutorial easy to use and very convenient for finding out how
to do things quickly and easily. I grant you that possibly thats not the
way to be a true Elisp god, but for getting things done in a timely and
efficient manner I thought it was good.
Clearly Xah Lee stirs up some strong emotions here. I can only go on
what I have read from him and I find him interesting and always willing
to back up his own research and views.
--
important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday. ~Dennis Gabor, Innovations: Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
Richard Riley <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Raymond Wiker <···@RawMBP.local> writes:
>> OK, how about this: Xah's elisp code stinks to high
>> heaven. His code should not be studied by anybody who actually wants
>> to actually learn elisp (or anything else).
>
> I found his tutorial easy to use and very convenient for finding out how
> to do things quickly and easily. I grant you that possibly thats not the
> way to be a true Elisp god, but for getting things done in a timely and
> efficient manner I thought it was good.
Emacs comes with source code for all(?) the elisp code. In
contrast to Xah's offerings, this is generally well-written, conforms
to a common coding style, and has a nice architecture (no ad-hoc
"solutions" to things that are already solved, in a more general
manner). There is also a wealth of reference information and tutorials
available.
> Clearly Xah Lee stirs up some strong emotions here. I can only go on
> what I have read from him and I find him interesting and always willing
> to back up his own research and views.
>>>>> "r" == r <······@gmail.com> writes:
r> Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
r> have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
r> ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
r> and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are
r> from my supposed "brothers" here at c.l.py. Just letting you know
r> there are open minded people out here. I would hate to live in a world
r> that did not contain an Xah lee.
Since Usenet has neither "stars" nor "ratings", you are hallucinating.
Care to elaborate?
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<······@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
"Randal L. Schwartz" <······@stonehenge.com> wrote in message
···················@blue.stonehenge.com...
>>>>>> "r" == r <······@gmail.com> writes:
>
> r> Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
> r> have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
> r> ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
> r> and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are
> r> from my supposed "brothers" here at c.l.py. Just letting you know
> r> there are open minded people out here. I would hate to live in a world
> r> that did not contain an Xah lee.
>
> Since Usenet has neither "stars" nor "ratings", you are hallucinating.
>
> Care to elaborate?
Google groups' corrupting influence...
P
r <······@gmail.com> wrote:
[Why not Ruby?]
Becasue it is off topic in CL.perl.M just as in any other NG he posted
to.
>Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his
Oh my good, the idiot discovered alter egos.
>There is nothing wrong with a person expressing their opinion on any
>subject. Apparently some of you need to get laid and calm down a
>little. Xah has just as much right as anyone here to post his
>thoughts, even if they are off topic.
Exactly everyone's point. He has exactly the same right as anybody else
which is exactly that NOBODY has the "right" to post off topic posts.
Sometimes they may be tolerated, on rare, special occasions even be
welcome. But by and large they are as disturbing as playing 'Love me
tender' during a perfomance of the Walkuere. I don't want to hear Elvis,
I paid my money for Wagner! If I wanted to listen to Elvis, then I would
go to an Elvis concert.
>Look, if you don't like what he
>is saying, DON'T F'IN READ IT!
He has been plonked a loooooooong time ago. It's just he newcomers, who
still respond to him. And no his alter ego with the unpronouncable name
of rt8396.
>Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you
>have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410
>ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star
>and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post), most are
There are neither profiles nor stars or ratings on Usenet. Keep you
made-up nonsense to yourself.
jue
In comp.lang.lisp r <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his
> insights of languages and tech is fascinating. The man lives in a
> world driven by common sense, and you know what they say --"Common
> sense is the least most common thing"-- just look around at the
> responses here.
Might hold true for some rants, but most of it's tl;dr drivel. For
instance, his critique of Lisp's homoiconicity is completely off-target.
> I come from a different world than IT, and I thought initially the IT
> world would be filled with intelligent, free thinking, and open minded
> people... BOY was i wrong! I would not turn my back on these people
> for a second, lest you catch a knife in it!
So-called "IT" is driven by capitalistic impulses. Dijkstra and his
followers get dismissed as ivory tower intellectuals.
FUT warning.
--
You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything
away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything he’s no longer
in your power — he’s free again. -- Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn
···@netherlands.com wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
>>> for those interested.
>>>
>>> * Why Not Ruby?
>>> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html
>>>
>>> plain text version follows:
>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Why Not Ruby?
>>>
>>> Xah Lee, 2008-12-31
>>>
>>> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
>>>
>>> The articles i read in detail are:
>>>
>>> * Wikipedia: Ruby (programming language)�J. Gives general overview.
>>>
>>> * Brief tutorial: "Ruby in Twenty Minutes"
>>> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/
>>>
>>> * Personal blog by Stevey Yegge, published in 2004-10.
>>> http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/ruby-tour
>>>
>>> The Wikipedia gives the best intro and overview in proper context. The
>>> "Ruby in Twenty Minutes" is just 4 pages. It give you a very concrete
>>> intro to Ruby's syntax and semantics. Stevey Yegge's blog doesn't
>>> teach much and rambles, but provide a little personal view. I read it
>>> because his opinions i respect.
>>>
>>> Q: Will you learn Ruby?
>>>
>>> No. For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
>>> than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript. For academic study,
>>> functional langs like Mathematica, Haskell, OCaml, erlang, Qz, are far
>>> more interesting and powerful in almost all aspects. Further, there's
>>> also Perl6, NewLisp, Clojure, Scala... With respect to elegance or
>>> power, these modern lang of the past 5 years matches or exceed Ruby.
>>>
>>> Q: Do you think Ruby lang is elegant?
>>>
>>> Yes. In my opinion, better than Perl, Python, PHP. As a high level
>>> lang, it's far better than Java, C, C++ type of shit. However, i don't
>>> think it is any better than emacs lisp, Scheme lisp, javascript,
>>> Mathematica. Note that Ruby doesn't have a spec, and nor a formal
>>> spec. Javascript has. Ruby's syntax isn't that regular, nor is it
>>> based on a system. Mathemtica's is. Ruby's power is probably less than
>>> Scheme, and probably same as Javascript.
>>>
>>> I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
>>> code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Q: Won't Ruby be a interesting learning experience?
>>>
>>> No. As far as semantics goes, Ruby is basically identical to Perl,
>>> Python, PHP. I am a expert in Perl and PHP, and have working knowledge
>>> of Python. I already regretted having spent significant amount of time
>>> (roughly over a year) on Python. In retrospect, i didn't consider the
>>> time invested in Python worthwhile. (as it turns out, i don't like
>>> Python and Guido cult, as the lang is going the ways of OOP mumbo-
>>> jumbo with its Python 3 "brand new" future.) There is absolutely
>>> nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python, PHP, or Emacs lisp,
>>> Scheme lisp.
>>>
>>> Q: Do you recommend new programers to learn Ruby then?
>>>
>>> Not particularly. As i mentioned, if you are interested in practical
>>> utility, there's already Perl, PHP, Python, Javascript, which are all
>>> heavily used in the computing industry. If you are interested as a
>>> academic exercise, there's Scheme lisp, and much of functional langs
>>> such as OCaml, Haskell, Mathematica, which will teach you a whole lot
>>> more about computer science, features of language semantics, etc.
>>>
>>> Q: Do you condemn Ruby?
>>>
>>> No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
>>> languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
>>> are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. See:
>>> Proliferation of Computing Languages.
>>>
>> Kenny Tilton, 2008-12-31
>>
>> Q: Why not Xah's review of Ruby?
>>
>>>> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
>> A. Three hours? I've had belches that lasted longer than that. Of
>> course, a true master can tell a lot in just a few hours of coding with
>> a new language...
>>
>>>> The articles i read in detail are:
>> Q: Read?!
>>
>> A: That's what he said.
>>
>>
>> hth,kzo
>
> Be carefull what you say. If they pay me I would rip your and Xah's
> guts out in a second.
Sorry, my new President has banned drama so I will only be responding
pleasantly to civil comments. (This has been a non-responding response.)
Peace,k
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, ···@netherlands.com wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Xah Lee wrote:
> >> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
> >> for those interested.
> >>
>
> Be carefull what you say. If they pay me I would rip your and Xah's
> guts out in a second.
>
> sln
Too much champagne? A guy (XL) is sometimes off topic and I don't always
agree with his postings - if I find the subject somewhat worthy, I usually
skim through it, this is how I have found myself knee deep in this
strange exchange between XL's supporters and opponents. And his website is
big like a magazine and full of strange, sometimes not interesting or hard
to assess stuff (it needs time to read and time is hard to find nowadays).
But sometimes, what he writes is informative, too. A bit redundant but
still, I would give him a small "plus", rather than "zero" or "minus".
But I do not remember him being blunt or agressive.
Regards,
Tomasz Rola
--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... **
** **
** Tomasz Rola ··················@bigfoot.com **
Xah Lee,
> I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate
> code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like
> that.
You could not be more right Xah, the use of "end" in a language as
high level as Ruby is redundant, and idiotic. There are a few things
about Ruby i really like, but this "end" business is blasphemy. If
ruby did not use indentation, i would see the need for "end", or
braces, or whatever, but why use both indentation AND the "end" word?
Such stupidity. I guess Mats thought Ruby would look too much like
Python, ARE YOU KIDDING MATS?, you already took so much from Python
anyway, dropping the end statement won't change that. And heck, you
will gain many new users with out it's archaic redundancy!!!!
I must say at first i did not like the each method but it has grow on
me because of its space saving attributes. There are also some nice
shortcuts in Ruby that do not exist in Python. I am beginning to think
the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and
Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear
syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus. I would probably lean more
towards python scoping and classes than ruby, but python classes need
a little less redundancy also. Of course pythons list, dict, strings
in my opinion just can't be beat, and regex forget-a-about-it! Python
rules here. Even though Ruby has built in support, python's is much
more elegant. I really like pythons handling of modules and
module.class.method syntax.
Both languages have much to offer, i believe though Python has a
better base, it just needs some cleaning up, and shortcut syntax so
moderate/Gurus don't develop carpal tunnel too early :)
r <······@gmail.com> writes:
> I am beginning to think
> the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and
> Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear
> syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus.
You might like Tim Sweeney's POPL talk:
http://www.st.cs.uni-saarland.de/edu/seminare/2005/advanced-fp/docs/sweeny.pdf
> Of course pythons list, dict, strings in my opinion just can't be beat,
On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary
implementation in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map. One of these years
I'll get around to writing one.
On Jan 1, 8:32 pm, Paul Rubin <·············@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
[snip...]
> > Of course pythons list, dict, strings in my opinion just can't be beat,
>
> On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary
> implementation in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map. One of these years
> I'll get around to writing one.
Care to save me the effort of looking it up and tell me what Data.Map
does that Python's dict doesn't?
I guess if it is functional then every mutation must copy and return a
new data structure? (Which will be much more efficient in Haskell than
in Python - Haskell can share most of the underlying data whereas
Python would have to create a new dict every time. At least it only
stores references.)
Michael Foord
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:13:19 -0800, Fuzzyman wrote:
> Care to save me the effort of looking it up and tell me what Data.Map
> does that Python's dict doesn't?
>
> I guess if it is functional then every mutation must copy and return a
> new data structure? (Which will be much more efficient in Haskell than
> in Python - Haskell can share most of the underlying data whereas Python
> would have to create a new dict every time. At least it only stores
> references.)
Who says that it must create a whole new one? I could imagine that with a
bit weakref code and some thought an immutable dictionary that shares
data would be possible in Python too.
regards,
Marek
Marek Kubica <·····@xivilization.net> writes:
> > I guess if it is functional then every mutation must copy and return a
> > new data structure?
Yes.
> > (Which will be much more efficient in Haskell than
> > in Python - Haskell can share most of the underlying data whereas Python
> > would have to create a new dict every time. At least it only stores
> > references.)
The structure sharing is essential, but you can do it in Python, just
not using Python dicts as far as I can tell.
> Who says that it must create a whole new one? I could imagine that with a
> bit weakref code and some thought an immutable dictionary that shares
> data would be possible in Python too.
I don't see a way to do that. Suppose d and e are dicts that are supposed
to share structure except d['name']='bob' and e['name']='joe'. How do
weakrefs help?
Functional dictionaries are usually implemented using red-black trees
or AVL trees or similar data structures, rather than hash tables.
XL> Spent about 3 hours looking into Ruby language today.
wow, you're such a hero!
XL> I am a expert in Perl and PHP,
you mean you have spent whopping 5 hours looking into them?
XL> For practical application, the lang is some 100 times less useful
XL> than each of Perl, Python, PHP, Javascript.
what is your metrics? it is 100 times harder to troll about Ruby or what?
p.s. why not post it into comp.lang.ruby?
In comp.lang.lisp Xah Lee <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression
> for those interested.
For once, your rant actually makes some sense.
> There is absolutely nothing new in Ruby, as compared to Perl, Python,
> PHP, or Emacs lisp, Scheme lisp.
Forgot to mention Smalltalk. Ruby is just Smalltalk for Perl "unix
geekers", as you tend to call unix hobbyist programmers.
FUT ignored.
--
You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything
away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything he’s no longer
in your power — he’s free again. -- Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn
Xah Lee wrote:
> Q: Do you condemn Ruby?
>
> No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many
> languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them,
> are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby.
There is one thing that Ruby is exceptionally good for and that is
replacing COBOL and Visual Basic as the programming languages
for non-programmers. It's dead boring as a language but somebody
who is an accountant or something could make some okayish tools
for personal use in it.
Next point. If your going to post this sort of thing _only_ post to
comp.programming and _never_ post what is on your website. Just
put it into your sig block.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the login:
Computers don't actually think.
You just think they think.
(We think.)