Michael DeHaan
11/18/2004 6:46:00 PM
Is excessive boilerplate of over-casty static languages really poetry?
I don't think so.
To put this in another light, maybe some people like reading Faulkner
for his overly winded and indirect prose, I don't. And that's why
I'm here :)
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:47:25 +0900, Curt Hibbs <curt@hibbs.com> wrote:
> James Britt wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Francis Hwang wrote:
> > ...
> > > I won't speak for him, but I think it's a fairly widespread opinion. My
> > > guess as to why is that people automatically think programming
> > has to be
> > > difficult (i.e. lots of static typing, necessity of expensive IDEs,
> > > etc.) in order to be effective. Rubyists come along with their talk of
> > > enjoying their work and serious Javaists think to themselves "That's
> > > nice, but there's no way that would work at my serious company doing my
> > > serious thing."
> >
> > Agreed. And I think it's the "scripting language" ghetto, and ignorance
> > about dynamic typing (which, in it's worst form, equates it with weak
> > typing), that keeps many people from appreciating Ruby (and other agile
> > languages as well).
> >
> > Educating people on dynamic typing is important, but I think I'd be
> > happier if people would simply stop referring to Ruby as a "scripting"
> > language (too many pejorative connotations, right or wrong), and simply
> > described it as an *interpreted* language instead.
>
> Actually, I liked what you said in your previous paragraph -- Ruby is an
> "agile language"!
>
> Curt
>
>