This has perhaps been aired here already, if so, apologies.
Someone did not like Ruby; I find it refreshing to read these takes as well since the actually bring up some (fairly) valid points, this one moreso than usual.
ES wrote: > This has perhaps been aired here already, if so, apologies.
> Someone did not like Ruby; I find it refreshing to read > these takes as well since the actually bring up some > (fairly) valid points, this one moreso than usual.
First, an OT question: Is there a Firefox extension that lets me *quickly* disable/enable page colors? I know I can do this via the Web dev tool bar stuff, but it's too many clicks, and sites with white text on a dark background (hip as that may be) are so painful to look at I get retina burn before I can finish all that clicking.
About the log entry. I have a rule of thumb. If someone is using the words "shit" or "fuck" three or four times on page, they quickly lose all credibility. (Certain words should be treated like global variables: saved for special cases and for specific effect.)
I like reading critiques (or criticism, even) of Ruby, but most of what was mentioned there were straw man arguments. Certainly POLS is a known subjective aspect and an easy target. I expect everyone reading ruby-talk could assemble a list of cases where Ruby violates their own sense of POLS.
> First, an OT question: Is there a Firefox extension that lets me > *quickly* disable/enable page colors? I know I can do this via the Web > dev tool bar stuff, but it's too many clicks, and sites with white text > on a dark background (hip as that may be) are so painful to look at I > get retina burn before I can finish all that clicking.
I use a bookmarklet in my bookmarks toolbar for this.
> Someone did not like Ruby; I find it refreshing to read > these takes as well since the actually bring up some > (fairly) valid points, this one moreso than usual.
Some valid points ? I think this guy does not know what he's talking about, or simply did not read the documentation correctly, or is simply blinded by something he should unlearn first, or simply likes making straw man arguments for the sake of it, or simply likes to rant (that I can understand, I like it too :) ).
And calling the language creator(s) "fucktard(s)" really doesn't help making a point, really.
> > Someone did not like Ruby; I find it refreshing to read > > these takes as well since the actually bring up some > > (fairly) valid points, this one moreso than usual.
> Some valid points ? I think this guy does not know what he's talking > about, or simply did not read the documentation correctly, or is > simply blinded by something he should unlearn first, or simply likes > making straw man arguments for the sake of it, or simply likes to > rant (that I can understand, I like it too :) ).
> And calling the language creator(s) "fucktard(s)" really doesn't help > making a point, really.
> I use a bookmarklet in my bookmarks toolbar for this.
for *just a second* I've been thinking you used a toolbar to collect places where ruby-talk shows that POLS relates to Matz' least surprise. How lovely.
> This has perhaps been aired here already, if so, apologies.
> Someone did not like Ruby; I find it refreshing to read > these takes as well since the actually bring up some > (fairly) valid points, this one moreso than usual.
Despite the fucking swearing, he did come up with a list of almost everything that has confused or annoyed me since I started using ruby.
What he neglected to mention is that Ruby is without doubt the closest attempt yet at a perfect scripting language. Sure, it has some wrinkles, but I have high hopes of those being sorted in the next iteration, whether by Matz or by somebody else standing on his (and other giants) shoulders.
Despite the colourful language, an insightful critique and worth a quick browse.
Andrew Walrond
PS The lack of documentation regarding method thrown exceptions is perhaps my favourite criticism. Not at all core, but frustrating as hell when writing OO /exception driven programs.
>> Someone did not like Ruby; I find it refreshing to read >> these takes as well since the actually bring up some >> (fairly) valid points, this one moreso than usual.
> Some valid points ? I think this guy does not know what he's talking > about, or simply did not read the documentation correctly, or is simply > blinded by something he should unlearn first, or simply likes making > straw man arguments for the sake of it, or simply likes to rant (that I > can understand, I like it too :) ).
I think this is a bad written rant, but I agree that I'd like implicit namespace creation a-la python and that it's refreshing to see some ruby critiques.
> This has perhaps been aired here already, if so, apologies.
> Someone did not like Ruby; I find it refreshing to read > these takes as well since the actually bring up some > (fairly) valid points, this one moreso than usual.
> "It's 5.abs for absolute value, but Math.sqrt(5) for square root."
> Good point. That bugs me too. abs is a *function*, not logically a > method.
Why not 5.sqrt instead. Better to ask the object to do something, that to do something with the object. That allows to use duck typing and special casing to be done in the "special cased" object. I prefer "string".length a lot over length(string)
