Re: Why not Ruby?

En Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:00:01 -0200, r escribió: Steven i got you NOW! Everybody go and look at this thread, there Mr. Makinzie butts in and posts an off-topic question, and Steven answers it, contributing to the off-topicalitly of the thread. And has yet to apologize for it, or Does the word

Re: Why not Ruby?

"Randal L. Schwartz" wrote in message news:861vvnqqzl@blue.stonehenge.com... >> "r" == r writes: > > r> Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you > r> have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410 > r> ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Jan 2, 6:54 pm, Gerry Reno wrote: > There's been almost 50 responses to this rubbish post. Could you please > all stop! Donde es Xah Lee? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

Hey Lee, I really like your overview of the official Python tut, it's spot on, and your study of OOP was quite fascinating! I like people who are honest and not afraid to go up against the status quo, although i will admit you go a little further than i might at times :). But the world needs an ene

Re: Why not Ruby?

r wrote: [Why not Ruby?] Becasue it is off topic in CL.perl.M just as in any other NG he posted to. >Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his Oh my good, the idiot discovered alter egos. >There is nothing wrong with a person expressing their opinion

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Jan 5, 7:31 am, "Tim Rowe" wrote: > 2009/1/1 r : > > > I am beginning to think > > the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and > > Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear > > syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus. > > I spent quite a few evenings look

Re: Why not Ruby?

2009/1/1 r : > I am beginning to think > the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and > Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear > syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus. I spent quite a few evenings looking at Ruby, and didn't find a single thing I liked (

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Jan 1, 3:55 am, Roger wrote: > On Dec 31, 12:55 pm, Xah Lee wrote: > > > Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression > > for those interested. > > Who are you? > > In case no one tells you, you are a cocky, egotistical windbag with > opinions that border constructi

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:00:01 -0800, r wrote: > On Jan 2, 6:45 am, Steven D'Aprano cybersource.com.au> wrote: >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:38:02 -0800, r wrote: >> > He was not cross posting. >> >> You don't actually know what cross-posting is, do you? >> >> You've just earned a plonking for the next

Re: Why not Ruby?

There's been almost 50 responses to this rubbish post. Could you please all stop! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

Don Geddis wrote: > Richard Riley wrote on Thu, 01 Jan 2009: >> Tim Greer writes: >>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple, >>> irrelevant >>> news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. >> >> No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why. How is a >> comparison

Re: Why not Ruby?

Richard Riley wrote on Thu, 01 Jan 2009: > Tim Greer writes: >> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple, irrelevant >> news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. > > No rhyme nor reason? It's quite clear, to me, why. How is a comparison > article not relevant when he i

Re: Why not Ruby?

Xah Lee wrote: > Q: Do you condemn Ruby? > > No. I think it's reasonably elegant, but today there are too many > languages, so Ruby don't particularly standout for me. Many of them, > are arguably quite more elegant and powerful than Ruby. There is one thing that Ruby is exceptionally good for

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Jan 2, 6:45 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:38:02 -0800, r wrote: > > He was not cross posting. > > You don't actually know what cross-posting is, do you? > > You've just earned a plonking for the next month. Do try to have at least > half a clue by February. > > -- > Steven

Please show some restraint (Was: Why not Ruby?)

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:57:06 +0100 Richard Riley wrote: > You clearly have a personal issue with Xah Lee. Possibly it is better > you killfile him or your spring will over wind :-; What good does a killfile do if people insist on repeating his posts in their entirety? Please people, try to resis

Re: Why not Ruby?

On 02 Jan 2009 12:45:36 GMT Steven D'Aprano wrote: > You've just earned a plonking for the next month. Do try to have at > least half a clue by February. I will state again that there seems to have been a slight change of tone in clp lately. How about we Python guys work a bit harder on not cal

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:38:02 -0800, r wrote: > He was not cross posting. You don't actually know what cross-posting is, do you? You've just earned a plonking for the next month. Do try to have at least half a clue by February. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

Steven D'Aprano a écrit : On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:35:54 -0800, r wrote: (snip stupid troll) You really are an idiot. Steven, this bozo is just another Xah Lee, so don't waste your time with him. We all know how to deal with trolls, don't we ? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/py

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:19:38 -0800, Fuzzyman wrote: > On Jan 2, 12:16 am, Steven D'Aprano cybersource.com.au> wrote: >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:32:53 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: >> > On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary >> > implementation in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  O

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Jan 1, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:35:54 -0800, r wrote: > > the use of "end" in a language as > > high level as Ruby is redundant, and idiotic. There are a few things > > about Ruby i really like, but this "end" business is blasphemy. > > "Blasphemy"? > > You reall

Re: Why not Ruby?

Marek Kubica writes: > > I guess if it is functional then every mutation must copy and return a > > new data structure? Yes. > > (Which will be much more efficient in Haskell than > > in Python - Haskell can share most of the underlying data whereas Python > > would have to create a new dict ev

Re: Why not Ruby?

Steven D'Aprano writes: > You don't think Python's dict implementation is functional? I'm using the term "functional" in the sense of Chris Okasaki's book "Purely Functional Data Structures". Basically a functional dictionary is an immutable dictionary that supports fast "update" operations by

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:13:19 -0800, Fuzzyman wrote: > Care to save me the effort of looking it up and tell me what Data.Map > does that Python's dict doesn't? > > I guess if it is functional then every mutation must copy and return a > new data structure? (Which will be much more efficient in Has

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:35:54 -0800, r wrote: > the use of "end" in a language as > high level as Ruby is redundant, and idiotic. There are a few things > about Ruby i really like, but this "end" business is blasphemy. "Blasphemy"? You really are an idiot. Programming languages are not religions.

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Jan 1, 6:16 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:32:53 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: > > On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary implementation > > in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  One of these years I'll get around > > to writing one. > > You don't think Pytho

Re: Why not Ruby?

er witnessed a time where Xah jumped in the middle of a thread and started a ruckus(i could be wrong), But i do see many interrupting Xah's threads or any thread for that matter that they feel is irrelevant to them. The topic of a thread is it's title. Here, the title is "Why Not Ruby". I am the only person yet to offer argument for or against Ruby here. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Jan 2, 12:16 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:32:53 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: > > On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary implementation > > in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  One of these years I'll get around > > to writing one. > > You don't think Pyth

Re: Why not Ruby?

Richard Riley wrote: > Tim Greer writes: > >> Richard Riley wrote: >> >>> >>> Tim Greer writes: >>> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > This is not a Ruby group. > I recommend you to go waste your time there. That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple, >>

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:32:53 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: > On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary implementation > in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map. One of these years I'll get around > to writing one. You don't think Python's dict implementation is functional? That's pretty s

Re: Why not Ruby?

Kenneth Tilton wrote: >Xah has >something to say about technology, like what he says or not. Unfortunately it's unrelated to the topics the NGs he is spamming. *PLONK* jue -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

Richard Riley wrote: >discussion about alternative languages for modern development? Most news >readers feature a kill thread command if you are not interested in the >content. Certainly less extreme or ignorant than killing all posts from >someone Thank you for reminding me *PLONK* jue -- http

Re: Why not Ruby?

Kenneth Tilton writes: > Richard Riley wrote: >> Jason Rumney writes: >> >>> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r wrote: >>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense >>> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general >>> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the someti

Re: Why not Ruby?

Tim Greer writes: > Richard Riley wrote: > >> >> Tim Greer writes: >> >>> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: >>> This is not a Ruby group. I recommend you to go waste your time there. >>> >>> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple, >>> irrelevant news groups. There's no

Re: Why not Ruby?

Raymond Wiker writes: > Richard Riley writes: > >> Tamas K Papp writes: >> >>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote: >>> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving

Re: Why not Ruby?

Richard Riley wrote: Jason Rumney writes: On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r wrote: The man lives in a world driven by common sense "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never- ending threads that frequently follo

Re: Why not Ruby?

Richard Riley wrote: > Jason Rumney writes: > >> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r wrote: >> >>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense >> >> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general >> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never- >> ending threads

Re: Why not Ruby?

Richard Riley wrote: > > Tim Greer writes: > >> Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: >> >>> This is not a Ruby group. >>> I recommend you to go waste your time there. >> >> That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple, >> irrelevant news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's bes

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Richard Riley wrote: > Jason Rumney writes: > > > On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r wrote: > > > >> The man lives in a world driven by common sense > > > > "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general > > populace. I don't see much evidence of that in t

Re: Why not Ruby?

Richard Riley writes: > Tamas K Papp writes: > >> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote: >> >>> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far >>> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving >>> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his poi

Re: Why not Ruby?

Tamas K Papp writes: > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote: > >> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far >> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving >> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote: > posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far > and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving > to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive Programmers don't "move" to

Re: Why not Ruby?

Tim Greer writes: > Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > >> This is not a Ruby group. >> I recommend you to go waste your time there. > > That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple, > irrelevant news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's best > to just filter the guy's posts.

Re: Why not Ruby?

r writes: > On Jan 1, 2:05 am, Jason Rumney wrote: >> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r wrote: >> >> > The man lives in a world driven by common sense >> >> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general >> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never- >> ending

Re: Why not Ruby?

Jason Rumney writes: > On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r wrote: > >> The man lives in a world driven by common sense > > "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general > populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never- > ending threads that frequently follow his posti

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Jan 1, 8:32 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: [snip...] > > Of course pythons list, dict, strings in my opinion just can't be beat, > > On many occasions I've wished for a functional dictionary > implementation in Python, like Haskell's Data.Map.  One of these years > I'll g

Re: Why not Ruby?

r writes: > I am beginning to think > the perfect high level language would take the best for Ruby and > Python. The ultimate language with speed in mind, pythons clear > syntax, but with shortcuts for gurus. You might like Tim Sweeney's POPL talk: http://www.st.cs.uni-saarland.de/edu/seminare

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, s...@netherlands.com wrote: > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton > wrote: > > >Xah Lee wrote: > >> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression > >> for those interested. > >> > > Be carefull what you say. If they pay me I would ri

Re: Why not Ruby?

Xah Lee, > I also didn't like the fact that ruby uses keyword "end" to indicate > code block much as Pascal and Visual Basic, Logo, do. I don't like > that. You could not be more right Xah, the use of "end" in a language as high level as Ruby is redundant, and idiotic. There are a few things about

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Jan 1, 2:05 am, Jason Rumney wrote: > On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r wrote: > > > The man lives in a world driven by common sense > > "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general > populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never- > ending threads that frequently

Re: Why not Ruby?

In comp.lang.lisp r wrote: > Face it, the world needs people like Xah. Go check out his site, his > insights of languages and tech is fascinating. The man lives in a > world driven by common sense, and you know what they say --"Common > sense is the least most common thing"-- just look around at

Re: Why not Ruby?

s...@netherlands.com wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton wrote: Xah Lee wrote: Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression for those interested. * Why Not Ruby? http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html plain text ve

Re: Why not Ruby?

> "r" == r writes: r> Xah, I been watching your posts for sometime and it looks like you r> have been around for a while. Your profile shows one star & 410 r> ratings. I have only been in usenet for 2 month and i have one star r> and 253 ratings(that will grow to much more after this post),

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r wrote: > The man lives in a world driven by common sense "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never- ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to start debate

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:41 -0500, Kenneth Tilton wrote: >Xah Lee wrote: >> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression >> for those interested. >> >> * Why Not Ruby? >> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.

Re: Why not Ruby?

2008/12/31 Giampaolo Rodola' : > On 31 Dic, 18:55, Xah Lee wrote: >> Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression [...] > --- Giampaolo > http://code.google.com/p/pyftpdlib > Hey, Giampaolo: I had gone to the trouble to filter out the posts from xah lee, but you have q

Re: Why not Ruby?

Xah Lee wrote: > Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression > for those interested. > > * Why Not Ruby? > http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html > > plain text version follows: > -------------

Re: Why not Ruby?

Roger a écrit : On Dec 31, 12:55 pm, Xah Lee wrote: (snip) Who are you? His name is Xah Lee, and he's a well(hem)known troll. Just ignore him. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Why not Ruby?

Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > This is not a Ruby group. > I recommend you to go waste your time there. That poster has a frequent habit of cross posting to multiple, irrelevant news groups. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's best to just filter the guy's posts. -- Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO,

Re: Why not Ruby?

On 31 Dic, 18:55, Xah Lee wrote: > Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression > for those interested. > > * Why Not Ruby? > http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html > > plain text version follows: > ---------

Re: Why not Ruby?

On Dec 31, 12:55 pm, Xah Lee wrote: > Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression > for those interested. > Who are you? In case no one tells you, you are a cocky, egotistical windbag with opinions that border constructive but never gets there. Why would anyone care

Why not Ruby?

Just spent 3 hours looking into Ruby today. Here's my short impression for those interested. * Why Not Ruby? http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/why_not_Ruby.html plain text version follows: ------ Why Not Ruby? Xah Lee, 2008-12-31 Spent about 3