From: tgies Date: 13:15 on 27 Sep 2007 Subject: Ruby is pretty advanced, folks Today I found out that certain Ruby environments (I discovered this playing around with XChat's Ruby scripting plugin, as an exercise in determining whether or not this Ruby tripe the kids won't shut up about is any good), when asked to unload a given module/script containing a single static method and then reload a new version of it, may silently fail to unload some submodule of that module (due to a revolutionary new misinterpretation of the "lazy evaluation" paradigm) and then silently not replace it with the new version. This is an interesting system. Let me offer some thoughts on how it might be improved. - What - That's nasty - You're retarded Also, I don't think that my 17-line script to chop up some text and display some trivial statistical information about it should sometimes suck up 1MB of memory idle, but this is arguable and we'll leave that one for another time.
From: Michael G Schwern Date: 00:07 on 28 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Ruby is pretty advanced, folks tgies wrote: > Today I found out that certain Ruby environments (I discovered this > playing around with XChat's Ruby scripting plugin, as an exercise in > determining whether or not this Ruby tripe the kids won't shut up > about is any good), when asked to unload a given module/script > containing a single static method and then reload a new version of it, > may silently fail to unload some submodule of that module (due to a > revolutionary new misinterpretation of the "lazy evaluation" paradigm) > and then silently not replace it with the new version. > > This is an interesting system. Let me offer some thoughts on how it > might be improved. > - What > - That's nasty > - You're retarded > > Also, I don't think that my 17-line script to chop up some text and > display some trivial statistical information about it should sometimes > suck up 1MB of memory idle, but this is arguable and we'll leave that > one for another time. While hating the prettiest kid on the block is a fine past time, you sure you shouldn't be kicking X-Chat instead?
From: tgies Date: 00:11 on 28 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Ruby is pretty advanced, folks On 9/27/07, Michael G Schwern <schwern@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > While hating the prettiest kid on the block is a fine past time, you sure you > shouldn't be kicking X-Chat instead? Yes, Ruby has cute syntax. It's still a joke in terms of implementation. And yeah, I did some poking around. It's the interpreter, not XChat. That's not to say, mind you, that XChat is any good.
From: Luke Kanies
Date: 00:18 on 28 Sep 2007
Subject: Re: Ruby is pretty advanced, folks
On Sep 27, 2007, at 6:11 PM, tgies wrote:
> Yes, Ruby has cute syntax. It's still a joke in terms of
> implementation. And yeah, I did some poking around. It's the
> interpreter, not XChat.
Yeah (speaking as someone who lives in Ruby every day), Ruby's
implementation could really use some work. Fortunately it's getting
some of that work, but we haven't seen it yet. I understand that
defending Ruby is off-topic, so I'll leave that for another list. :)
--
America believes in education: the average professor earns more money
in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week.
-- Evan Esar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
Generated at 10:28 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi