Talk:Ruby (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:45, 13 May 2005

Revision as of 05:19, 6 August 2005

Line 1:

== Name ==

Exact copy of entry posted June 12, 2001 8:02 am by

[[user:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]].

''Copied to change name from "Ruby language" to "Ruby

programming language" to match other language names.''

:For the record, I had little to do with this article, other then the editing. The original editing history was pruned. --[[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]

== Swift creation ==

----

So this guy created the language in one day? Cool. --AxelBoldt

:Of course not :) --[[:Taw|Taw]]

----

Some of the text of this article seems non-NPOV. For example "clean syntax" and "obvious syntax" seem rather subjective. It doesn't bother me too much, but someone who is familar with the language (and not biased :-) ) might want to

NPOV the text. --[[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] 19:08 16 May 2003 (UTC)

In fairness, and with considerable experience of using Ruby after unhappy experiences with many other programming languages, I can only concur with those representations. It is syntactically ''very'' clear and also extremely obvious to anyone with an understanding of OO concepts. [[User:Sjc|Sjc]] 13:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== POV issues ==

----

Some of the text of this article seems non-NPOV. For example "clean syntax" and "obvious syntax" seem rather subjective. It doesn't bother me too much, but someone who is familar with the language (and not biased :-) ) might want to NPOV the text. --[[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] 19:08 16 May 2003 (UTC)

:In fairness, and with considerable experience of using Ruby after unhappy experiences with many other programming languages, I can only concur with those representations. It is syntactically ''very'' clear and also extremely obvious to anyone with an understanding of OO concepts. --[[User:Sjc|Sjc]] 13:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Compiling ==

I'm not sure that Ruby has ever been compiled yet. AFAIK JRuby is a port of the interpreter to java byte code, but does not compile the underlying ruby? --[[User:TomCounsell]]

:Correct. But even as an interpreted language it is blindingly fast. --[[User:Sjc|Sjc]] 13:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::So there's agreement that no Ruby compilers exist? I plan to remove the misleading claim: ''"It was originally designed as an interpreted language, though in its JRuby implementation it may be compiled."'' --[[User:Ds13|Ds13]] 07:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, I've done some checking and it should probably be removed. There are a number of projects working on compiler type entities for ruby, but none that are beyond beta yet. -- [[User:TomCounsell|TomCounsell]]

== Hello World! ==

1) #"Hello World" is ''already in the article'', under "Blocks and iterators".

2) #I disagree about using "Hello World" in every programming language article because it is considered a standard example. It should especially be avoided for a high level language like Ruby in which it consists of a single, straight-forward expression. Any non-trivial example, say a program that (for example) constructs and uses a hash, involving the creation of a string object and printing it to the standard output, provides all information that can be found in a "Hello World" program, and much more.

The question is not whether it can be included in the article, but whether there are not better ways to use the same space. Note also the existence of the [[Hello world program]] page, which exists to cover this "standard example". --[[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 11:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::I'm confused. What change are you proposing? To remove the existing "Hello World" references in the article (under "Blocks...")? I'm all for it, since the code under that section doesn't run by itself anyways (blocks don't work out of the method calling context) and thus can be confusing. And if you want to change "Hello world" to "This is a block", I'd be happy too. Other than that, there aren't another other "Hello World"s in the article, so what exactly were you disagreeing with?

==Hello World==

1) "Hello World" is ''already in the article'', under "Blocks and iterators".

:::There was a second "Hell World" example. See the article history. --[[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 23:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

2) I disagree about using "Hello World" in every programming language article because it is considered a standard example. It should especially be avoided for a high level language like Ruby in which it consists of a single, straight-forward expression. Any non-trivial example, say a program that (for example) constructs and uses a hash, involving the creation of a string object and printing it to the standard output, provides all information that can be found in a "Hello World" program, and much more.

The question is not whether it can be included in the article, but whether there are not better ways to use the same space. Note also the existence of the [[Hello world program]] page, which exists to cover this "standard example". [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 11:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

== Section removal proposal ==

::I'm confused. What change are you proposing? To remove the existing "Hello World" references in the article (under "Blocks...")? I'm all for it, since the code under that section doesn't run by itself anyways (blocks don't work out of the method calling context) and thus can be confusing. And if you want to change "Hello world" to "This is a block", I'd be happy too. Other than that, there aren't another other "Hello World"s in the article, so what exactly were you disagreeing with?

That section dealing with mailing lists should be removed, I think. It is not encyclopedic, and most other languages do not have mailing lists as a section. Plus, what does it really inform the reader about? --[[User:Marudubshinki|Maru]] 05:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

:::There was a second "Hell World" example. See the article history. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 23:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)