Hallöchen!
Xavier Morel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Torsten Bronger wrote:
>
>> Yes, however, this is also true for Python in my opinion.
>
> Ruby's ability to generate DSLs is an order of magnitude better
> than Python's at least.
If good DSL includes morphing into another language, this may
Simple, clarity! Ruby reads like Perl's younger cousin.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Torsten Bronger wrote:
> Yes, however, this is also true for Python in my opinion.
>
Ruby's ability to generate DSLs is an order of magnitude better than
Python's at least.
I only know of the Lisp dialects that get better at DSLs.
Check Rails' validation methods (in the models), or if you don't
Hallöchen!
Marcin Mielżyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Bil Kleb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> The parensless calls also allow one to write beautiful DSLs with
>>> Ruby.
>>
>> What's a DSL?
>
> Domain Specific Language. It is easy t
Marcin Mielżyński wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> What's a DSL?
>
> Domain Specific Language. It is easy to tweak Rubys syntax and semantics
> into something that looks like another language designed for a specific
> task.
For example, see Margin Fowler's articles:
http://martinfowler.com/bli
Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bil Kleb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The parensless calls also allow one to write beautiful
>> DSLs with Ruby.
>
> What's a DSL?
Domain Specific Language. It is easy to tweak Rubys syntax and semantics
into something that looks like anot
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bil Kleb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The parensless calls also allow one to write beautiful
> DSLs with Ruby.
What's a DSL?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Bil Kleb wrote:
> Xavier Morel wrote:
>>> 2) Ruby does not have true first-class functions living in the same
>>> namespace as other variables while Python does :
>>>
>>> In Ruby you need extra syntax that ruins the "first-class-ness" :
>>>
>> The extra syntax is a side-effect of the parensless cal
Xavier Morel wrote:
>
>> 2) Ruby does not have true first-class functions living in the same
>> namespace as other variables while Python does :
>>
>> In Ruby you need extra syntax that ruins the "first-class-ness" :
>>
> The extra syntax is a side-effect of the parensless call of method, it
> doe
Xavier Morel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francois wrote:
> > 1) In Ruby there is a risk of "Variable/Method Ambiguity" when calling
> > a method with no parameters without using () :
> >
> Yes, but that's in my opinion a programmer error, not necessarily a
> language error.
In Python, you can
"Schüle Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> block (Python forbids the rebinding of variables coming from an
>> enclosing but non-global scope, to avoid facing this issue).
>
> I am not sure what you mean here
> can you elaborate on this please
>
> >>> def a():
>
I'll just play the devil's advocate here
Francois wrote:
> 1) In Ruby there is a risk of "Variable/Method Ambiguity" when calling
> a method with no parameters without using () :
>
Yes, but that's in my opinion a programmer error, not necessarily a
language error.
> 2) Ruby does not have true f
Francois wrote:
> I discovered Python a few months ago and soon decided to invest time in
> learning it well. While surfing the net for Python, I also saw the hype
> over Ruby and tried to find out more about it, before I definitely
> embarked on studying and practicing Python. I recently found two
Hi Alex
[...]
> The trick about distinguishing a name's exact nature based on whether
> the compiler sees an assignment to that name in some part of code is
> found in both languages, albeit in different ways. In Ruby, as you've
> pointed out, it's the heuristic used to disambiguate local variabl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > 1) In Ruby there is a risk of "Variable/Method Ambiguity" when calling
...
> > 2) Ruby does not have true first-class functions living in the same
...
> > 4) Conclusion
...
> What happened to 3)?
I thought the OP was counting up by p
Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I guess my choice of words "rigor and consistency" was not very good.
> In this context "rigor" meant enforcing rules (for example having to
> use parentheses to call a method) to prevent ambiguity rather than
> depending on heuristics. Also "consistency
Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> I also share your preference for a single namespace for callable and
> non-callable values, as in Python (and Scheme, Lisp, C++, ...), rather
> than disjoint namespaces as in Ruby (and Smalltalk), but I do not see it
> as a question of rigor and consistency at all -- e.g.,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What happened to 3)?
>
"4)" should have read "3)". I found the typo after I posted. I guess I
lack "rigor" myself !
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Francois wrote:
> I discovered Python a few months ago and soon decided to invest time in
> learning it well. While surfing the net for Python, I also saw the hype
> over Ruby and tried to find out more about it, before I definitely
> embarked on studying and practicing Python. I recently found tw
Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> I also share your preference for a single namespace for callable and
> non-callable values, as in Python (and Scheme, Lisp, C++, ...), rather
> than disjoint namespaces as in Ruby (and Smalltalk), but I do not see it
> as a question of rigor and consistency at all -- e.g.,
Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since I did a lot of work in Scheme, rigor and consistency are most
> important to me, and Python certainly meets this requirement.
It does pretty well, with some tempering of pragmatism -- but, to play
devil's advocate, Ruby isn't far in this respect. In eit
Francois wrote:
> I discovered Python a few months ago and soon decided to invest time
> in learning it well. While surfing the net for Python, I also saw
> the hype over Ruby and tried to find out more about it, before I
> definitely embarked on studying and practicing Python. I recently
> found
22 matches
Mail list logo
