The Artima Developer Community
Sponsored Link

News & Ideas Forum (Closed for new topic posts)
The Philosophy of Ruby

6 replies on 1 page. Most recent reply: Oct 8, 2003 4:48 AM by rasputin

Welcome Guest
  Sign In

Go back to the topic listing  Back to Topic List Click to reply to this topic  Reply to this Topic Click to search messages in this forum  Search Forum Click for a threaded view of the topic  Threaded View   
Previous Topic   Next Topic
Flat View: This topic has 6 replies on 1 page
Bill Venners

Posts: 2284
Nickname: bv
Registered: Jan, 2002

The Philosophy of Ruby Posted: Sep 29, 2003 12:10 AM
Reply to this message Reply
Yukihiro Matsumoto says, "I want to make Ruby users free. I want to give them the freedom to choose. People are different. People choose different criteria. But if there is a better way among many alternatives, I want to encourage that way by making it comfortable."

Read this interview with Ruby creator Yukihiro Matsumoto:

The Philosophy of Ruby

What do you think of Matz's comments?

David Garamond

Posts: 1
Nickname: dgaramond
Registered: Sep, 2003

The state of the implementation Posted: Sep 29, 2003 2:42 PM
Reply to this message Reply
Basically I agree with many (if not all) of Matz's view of programming and the design decisions he made in Ruby. Programming in Ruby is so much fun for me than having to code in Python or Java. Ruby is a very nice mixture of Perl practicalities and succintness, nice and clean syntax, and OO power.

I'm mostly interested in Matz' view of the current state of the implementation. Ruby is over 10 years old, very popular in Japan, gaining popularity in other parts of the world, have thousands of users and hundreds of hackers. However, the implementation (Ruby has only 1 currently, written in C) is pretty weak. It's slow, does not support native threads, does not do JIT compilation (not even bytecode), needs a better GC, etc. It is especially so if we compare it with Java and Smalltalk, who have gotten real good implementations (JIT compilers, fast GC, threads, etc) nowadays.

What does Matz think about this? Is he still more prioritized in tweaking Ruby's language itself, or have begun to work on the issues of the implementation?

It's a little shame that the Ruby implementation is not really 'there' yet.

Adrian Howard

Posts: 11
Nickname: ajh
Registered: May, 2003

Re: The Philosophy of Ruby Posted: Oct 1, 2003 12:56 PM
Reply to this message Reply
Ruby has been my learn-a-language-a-year language this year and it's great fun. Almost all the good things from Perl wrapped up in a nice neat OO package.

If it wasn't for CPAN I'd probably move to Ruby for all my Perlish things.

James Britt

Posts: 1319
Nickname: jamesbritt
Registered: Apr, 2003

Re: The state of the implementation Posted: Oct 1, 2003 3:36 PM
Reply to this message Reply
While there are some truths to your concerns over the Ruby interpreter (and, to the best of my knowldege, they are being addressed), in my actual use these just aren't issues. I'll grant you that I would not use Ruby for every single programming project, but that's also true of C, Java, or any other development tool.

If speed is critical it is simple enough to code up the bottlenecks in C and call them from Ruby. It's not an either/or choce. The ease of development and programmer-friendly mindset Ruby offers is what make it a compelling choice for most cases.

John Stoner

Posts: 5
Nickname: jstoner
Registered: May, 2003

Re: The Philosophy of Ruby Posted: Oct 2, 2003 12:39 PM
Reply to this message Reply
I think he muddied the issue of orthogonality in this interview. Orthogonality is generally a good thing, but something to be cautious with.

An example of good orthogonality is default parameters and typed parameters. Both are good, both can be used at the same time, because they don't step on each other's conceptual space.

Said better: orthogonal syntax for orthogonal language features. The example he gave was a pointed counterexample of that principle. "default parameter values for functions and overloading of function names based on parameters" are two ways to do very close things (almost the same), so of course using them in the same function would be confusing.

Qwerty Qwerty

Posts: 3
Nickname: qwerty
Registered: Nov, 2002

Re: The Philosophy of Ruby Posted: Oct 7, 2003 11:05 AM
Reply to this message Reply
I always hear how ruby is great because it combines the best of perl with OO, and i also agree. what happens when perl6 comes out? i can say 100% that i won't be using ruby or python for much, if anything. Hopefully i can even use perl6 to totally replace java whenever possible.

has anyone thought of the python and ruby perl6 dilemma coming up? i'd really like to know what other programmers thoughts are on this, i think for recreation use python and ruby will wtill be there, ut other than that, for real world use, i think perl6 will wind up eventually replacing ruby or python anywhere it's used, it just has to strong of a user base for a company to go with anything else.

i know a lot of perl programmers who have migrated to python and ruby, and i also know they'll ditch python and ruby altogether once perl6 is out.

i think python had a true shot but the community never focused on modules and a module depot like it should have .That module repository now links to is truley pathetic all on it's own, not even comparing it to cpan.


Posts: 1
Nickname: rasputin
Registered: Oct, 2003

Re: The Philosophy of Ruby Posted: Oct 8, 2003 4:48 AM
Reply to this message Reply
I'd turn that around and point out that perl6 is going to be such a different beast anyway that you might as well learn a new language.

Ruby is *very* close to Perl anyway, the OOP model just isn't an abomination like Perls. It's built in but doesnt get in the way if you want a quick one-liner.

And there's no 'scaffolding' required to use things e.g. iterators, as Java needs. This means 20 line scripts are 'OOPable' and you spend time writing code instead of doing little dances to keep the compiler happy...

Flat View: This topic has 6 replies on 1 page
Topic: Exploring with Wiki Previous Topic   Next Topic Topic: Organic Schemas and Outlier Data

Sponsored Links


Copyright © 1996-2019 Artima, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use