Ruby 1.9.0 Released 199
sciurus0 writes "The 1.9.0 development version of the Ruby programming language has been released. This version has many changes, including a new virtual machine that provides great speed improvements."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ruby 1.9.0 Released
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.
Re:Why Ruby? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why Ruby? (Score:4, Interesting)
* The built-in classes support functional-style programming. That is, the default action is generally to return a modified copy of the object being acted upon, so you can chain method calls together. This doesn't work well in Python, because methods frequently act like "procedures", modifying the object and returning nothing. Sometimes, Python programmers work around this by explicitly copying objects and then calling such methods. Other times, modifying the persistent object is just what they wanted; in Ruby, you would use a method which ends in "?", which is how Ruby identifies (by convention) methods that modify the object.
Thus, to combine two dictionaries in Python, without modifying either of them:
dcombined = d1.copy()
dcombined.update(d2)
In Ruby:
dcombined = d1.merge(d2)
Obviously the Python code is fine, but from a functional programming viewpoint, it looks awkward.
* It's entirely predictable whether a built-in class's method will modify the object, because of the "?" suffix convention. In Python, you don't have such an explicit convention, which can sometimes make more work for the programmer.
* Ruby doesn't rely on global functions as much, or "builtins" as they're called in Python. If you want to know the length of something, or convert a string into a list of characters, you call a method of the object rather than a global function. Some people find this to be easier, given that you only need to focus on one paradigm (object-oriented) and not two (e.g., object-oriented and imperative).
* The print statement in Ruby prints only what you tell it to, rather than adding whitespace in various cases. Since this is the behavior of print or printf in most languages, this is nice. Ruby offers the puts method for those times you want whitespace helpfully added (like Perl 5.10's say).
* regular expressions are more tightly integrated. Some people consider this a disadvantage of Ruby though, because you can write less explicit code.
* Ruby gives you fewer types of quotes to learn, because ' and " are multiline.
Re:Why Ruby? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'd like something else. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want the evidence, the data, the background, I've no objections to stating it. Well, with the exception of commercial projects still covered by non-disclosure agreements. Even if the company betrayed not only me but also the other software engineers there, resulting in engineers being deprived of rightful wages, forced out or removed under false pretenses. I have ethics, even if they do not. The bulk of my experience is NOT covered by any NDA, but is a little on the lengthy side. People get paid good money for writing books with less content. If you actually want to know, I have no objections, but it's not something anyone would be willing to read on Slashdot as a reply or even as a main article.
where's unicode? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'd like something else. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why Ruby? (Score:5, Interesting)
The heart of Ruby is its use of idiom. It's a difficult thing to describe, and I don't know how you'd find some metric to measure it, or to compare it to another language. But it's very clean, and very sensible, and surprisingly simple, at least on the surface.
There's a kind of aesthetic pleasure to be had in the syntax of Ruby. I was about to write that in that sense it's kind of an anti-perl, but that's flame bait, and I never connected with perl, and lots of people probably find perl beautiful. But Ruby is really great.
You can do things like:
1.upto(10) {|x| puts x }
Which does:
1
2
3
This thing looks a lot like an old fashioned for/each loop, but it's an iterator, and the code in the curly brackets is a closure. So under the hood, it's fairly different from a for/each loop.
There are a few things to mention about this.
First, because there are lots of iterators on the shelf, and because you can write your own iterators if you want, this thing is a lot more powerful than looping constructs in many other languages.
Second -- and this is the sort of thing I was trying to get at above -- the syntax for closures is tweaked so it makes human intuitive sense when you're using closures with iterators. In your head, you might be thinking in for/each terms, and the syntax colludes with you if you want to hang on to that useful fiction.
In Lisp, you can never forget about the lambdas. In Ruby, you just sort of do what you want, and the lambdas are there under the hood, but they're not jumping out at you in the same way. Ruby's syntax fits the way a lot of people think, and it hides the stuff that it makes sense to hide, and exposes the stuff that it makes sense to expose.
And when you write out that line of code, its meaning is very clear and easy to grab a hold of, and it turns out that it's usually very concise and compact as well.
This is a little redundant, but I want to stress it, that line of code really is a pretty thing, in a sense. It's not so remarkable if you think of it as a for/each loop, but it's not a for/each loop -- it's an iterator and a closure, and that's a somewhat complicated thing, but here it isn't complicated, or opaque. It's clean, and it makes sense, and it's concise, but most of all, the shape of the code conforms to the shape of the idea in your head. That's what Ruby is all about, and you see that over and over and over again.
Third, this approach to idiom is a real dual edged blade for me, because there's a culture in Ruby books that sort of says, "You know what this line of code is doing, so don't worry too much about the lambdas." For a long time, I felt lost in Ruby -- like, I kind of knew what the code was going to do, but I wasn't exactly sure what was going to happen under the hood. That's a really uncomfortable place to be. I had to watch the SICP lectures to really grab hold of Ruby.
It's always dangerous to talk about some other culture -- I could be way off base here, and I hope I don't say anything really dumb. But it feels Japanese to me -- it reminds me of a drawing where there aren't many lines, but all the lines are kind of perfect and clean. It's got that same sense of elegance to it. Let's boil this big thing down to its essence, and make it beautiful and sparse.
I can't tell you that Ruby is better than some other language. But I can tell you that it's very beautiful, and that the beauty lives in lots of small little details. The experience of learning and using Ruby is one of noticing these little things and saying, "Wow, how great is that?"
I used to live in an apartment building that had been designed by a famous architect -- Mies van der Rohe. The design made a difference -- I can't tell you why or how, exactly, but it d
Re:Why Ruby? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why Ruby? (Score:1, Interesting)
I assume you mean "!" here. And sadly, I've found that Ruby is less consistent than Scheme (from which it gets this nifty convention). In Scheme, every destructive function ends in "!". In Ruby, only destructive methods which also have a nondestructive alternative are suffixed with "!".
Not true. Hash#clear and Hash#delete modify the object, but contain no suffix. I hate this about Ruby: you can't skim the method list for methods ending in "!". You have to also know if there exists a nondestructive version of it, and if you knew that, you'd already know its name.
Python: list(foo)
Ruby: Array(foo)
The real difference is that Rubyists will say "oh, but Array here is a method on Kernel, and methods with no explicit object get sent to Kernel". How this is different from global functions is beyond me.
Ruby also has << and %w (for multiple strings). While Ruby may have slightly fewer quote characters to learn, every one of them does something very different. In Python, IIRC, there's really only "single line" and "multi line".
I like Ruby, but you picked some of the weirdest (or falsest) reasons I could have imagined. How about symbols? How about blocks? How about everything being an expression? Open classes, method_missing, operators as simply syntactic sugar? Let's try to sell people on the *good* parts of Ruby.
Re:I'd like something else. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, I would not call myself remotely qualified to write an article (or a book) on Haskell, Erlang, Pi-Occam, or any of the other fascinating languages out there, but I'm bothered by the rarity (and sometimes total lack) of any such text from people who are qualified. At this point, I'm tempted to write such disgracefully bad books on these subjects that the experts are compelled to write stuff worth reading out of sheer disgust. Or maybe the mere threat of me writing will be sufficient.