On 5 Aug 2014, at 5:46 pm, Marky Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > ...It made me go back and look at C++'s switch statement (see a just-prior > posting) and feel frustrated that C++ doesn't support such flexibility.
The Ruby case statement is just a fancy syntax for if… else if…else if… else. C applies Occam’s razor, not multiplying features needlessly. On the other hand, its switch statement does something that is well-supported by the hardware, but unavailable in Ruby; namely, allowing the compiler to decide when to use jump tables to get super-fast selection of cases. Feel frustrated all you like, but C is *more* functional than Ruby in this situation, not less. Clifford Heath. > (I mean not even support the generic object.equals syntax, never mind a > closure.) That's the kind of thing that highlights why one might bother with > Ruby at all. If you don't get the cleverness presented to you, you might > never find out about it. > > On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 5:22:31 PM UTC+10, Dan Harper wrote: > On 5 Aug 2014, at 4:24 pm, Tim Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >> One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, and which unfortunately I couldn't >> really address in the talk without a long tangent, is why would you want to >> write code like this in the first place? Is a proc in a case statement >> anything but a useless, overly-clever bit of language esoterica? > > I had the same thought. After some musing, I came to the conclusion that you > should opt for simpler code using simple concepts and cop the penalty of it > being more verbose. Not everyone will agree I’m sure, and that’s cool. > > The advantages of having simpler code using simple concepts is that your code > is now more easily understood by other developers with a lower level of Ruby > knowledge. This is the same reason I try to not perform Ruby gymnastics in > tests. If I do decide to use some more complex code, I use comments to > explain what I’m doing. > > This was probably more important back in the day when hardly anyone used > Ruby, but I still follow it. > > If you’re just consuming gems (not authoring them) and say, coding in Rails, > you’ll rarely have a need to use Proc or similar concepts. So when you’re > learning, I’d say don’t bother with Proc and fancy Ruby concepts. Learn other > things that will get you more productive at a faster rate. > > Dan > > > Dan Harper > [email protected] > Mobile: 0414 344 233 > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
