Hi Galt,
Ruby predates REBOL by a year or two (I've been on the Ruby mailing list
much longer than REBOL's).
IMHO you really cannot compare Ruby to REBOL. From a syntactic point of
view Ruby (to me) is extremely cumbersome and cryptic. It is intended as
a purely object oriented scripting language and reminds me of a mixture
of Java and PHP. Here is a code sample submitted by Steve to the Ruby
mailing list:
#! /usr/bin/env ruby
# Given the number of seconds, convert to English description
table = [ [ 31557816, 'year' ],
[ 2629818, 'month' ],
[ 86400, 'day' ],
[ 3600, 'hour' ],
[ 60, 'min' ],
[ 1, 'sec' ] ]
result = ""
time = ARGV[0].to_i
table.each {|unit, sing, plur|
plur = sing+'s' if !plur;
size = time / unit
if size > 0
result += "#{size} #{(size == 1) ? sing : plur} "
end
time %= unit
}
puts result
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have been away from the list for a while,
> so forgive me if this has already been hashed to death.
>
> I just a few days ago ran across references to Ruby,
> a newish programming language invented by a
> man in Japan (Matsumoto something...) and it seems
> to have many features similar to Rebol.
>
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
>
> Anyway, as I was reading about it I started making
> a rough comparison to rebol. Weird how similar
> the names are. Anyway, let's see...
>
> They both have good web support, are interpreted,
> support advanced data structures, have automatic garbage collection,
> have context/closures, error-handling.
>
> Platform
> Rebol ++ great, easy install, works on lots of platforms
> Ruby - oriented towards unix, can work on windows with effort.,
> only works in places like unix, and windows and dos and a few
> other platforms which can cobble together unix-like behavior
> with various add-on support modules.
>
> Multithreading
> Rebol - I know the apache server has some threading, but not basic reb.
> Ruby + good support for threads and semaphores
>
> Grpahics
> Rebol + graphics available now, no charge, and platform indep., easy to use
> Ruby - still don't have it built in, only some links to tk and other
>
> unix libs Open Source
> Rebol - no open source
> Ruby + strong open source community
>
> OOP
> Rebol ? rebol objects don't have real inheritance, you can do useful stuff,
> but they often just act as nice containers.
> Ruby + everything is an object, this is real oop, albeit single-inheritance.
> (personally, I don't care that much about oop, but if you do, you will like
>Ruby's oop)
>
> Performance
> Rebol ? Performance boosted at the loss of continuations and other niceties.
> Ruby ?- Probably has perf. not quite as good, but still pretty good, and
> they haven't jettisoned continuations, which is cool.
>
> Packages - modules for large sw dev.
> Rebol ? I haven't been following, but Rebol's are improving all the time
> Ruby + they seem to have good support for modules/libs/namespaces
>
> Size
> Rebol ++ Nice and small and easy to install
> Ruby ? Not sure how big, but probably not small like Rebol.
>
> Syntax
> Rebol + I like Rebol's syntax, don't suffer from endless parentheses and ;
> Ruby -? Pretty good syntax, but lots of "end" keywords everywhere
>
> Closures
> Rebol - Boo, hoo, I miss them
> Ruby + Yeah, they still got 'm
>
> Web Protocols
> Rebol + built in, could often use better doc. and examples,
> and some stuff like support for cookies is still lame addon
> Ruby ? seem to have good stuff, but as external package
> it is not quite as built in and ready to go, but still not bad.
>
> Object Serialization (saving and sending 'em)
> Rebol - nothing on the map yet, and it would add a whole new
> dimension, but problems as the definition of "binary" data
> and other types is not defined.
> Ruby + apparently, it is supposed to have good support for
> serializing objects, which is pretty cool.
>
> List as fundamental data element
> Rebol + has them built in, and very useful with good performance.
> Ruby ?- has great object support, but list support is an
> afterthought not an inherent tool.
>
> Ability to Link Foreign Code
> Rebol ? can do somewhat with Rebol/Command only?
> Ruby + supposed to excel at this
>
> Perl-like features
> Rebol + doesn't have 'em, I don't like perl much
> Ruby ?- partly Ruby was invented as a much better perl,
> has perl-like features
>
> Built-in utility features
> Rebol +/- platform isolation, but then you can't access some file attributes, etc.
> Ruby + supposed to be strong at this, although very unix-oriented
>
> Cost
> Rebol +? Not expensive, basic rebol and /view are free!
> Ruby + Hard to beat free
>
> Globalization support
> Rebol ? I always wondered why Rebol was not designed for an
> international global world. Only ascii support apparently at this time.
> Ruby + Partly because it's inventor is Japanese, this language is
> supposed to have excellent support built-in for handling lots of
> languages way beyond just plain 256 ascii codes.
>
> Well, you know I am extremely fond of Rebol,
> but it looks like Ruby has the edge in a few areas.
> While it is harder to install and runs on fewer platforms,
> lacks built-in graphics and simple installation, it does
> however have full oop, perl (yuck), good library/ext packages,
> international lang. support, serialization, and closures,
> and free open source with strong user community.
>
> I am sure some of you have run into this language,
> what do you think of Rebol vs. Ruby and the future?
>
> Note - I am just curious, not interested in flame-fights,
>
> and would like to know what some of the intelligent folks on
> the list here think about it.
>
> -Galt
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
