[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

[OT] the funniest thing ever

Ara.T.Howard

2/10/2007 6:13:00 AM

20 Answers

Morton Goldberg

2/10/2007 7:16:00 AM

0

On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:13 AM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

>
> this was so dang funny i had to share it
>
>
> C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
>
> -- off smalltalk.org
>
> http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hack...
> scalable_computer_programming_languages.html
>
>
> i'm still laughing...


That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I think
the article is well worth reading. Some of the other quotes appearing
there were almost a good as the one you picked. This one really got
my attention:

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it
harder, but
when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

It's hard to believe that comes from Bjarne Stroustrup.

Regards, Morton

dblack

2/10/2007 12:00:00 PM

0

Robert Klemme

2/10/2007 1:18:00 PM

0

On 10.02.2007 07:13, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>
> this was so dang funny i had to share it
>
>
> C++ : an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
>
> -- off smalltalk.org
>
> http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hacking/rants/scalable_computer_programming_lang...

Ara, thank you for sharing this - not only because of the funny quotes
but also because of the lot of good brainfood!

Kind regards

robert

David Morton

2/12/2007 5:29:00 PM

0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Morton Goldberg wrote:

> On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:13 AM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mvanier/hack...
>> scalable_computer_programming_languages.html
>
>
> That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I
> think the article is well worth reading.

I have to disagree with the paper a bit. It seems that the author is
evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations...
typical for academia.

If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod_ocaml for apache? are
there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Is there a a nice
framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the
author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML)

The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language
that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that).

More importantly, the scalability of a language depends more on the
programmer than the language. I've seen scalable and brittle code
in almost all of those languages.

David Morton
Maia Mailguard http://www.maiamai...
mortonda@dgrmm.net



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF0KPiUy30ODPkzl0RAvYrAKCBSqrYh0YIkZLYPCa00NOEDhh5OgCfUeZ0
PFAeCdEAfhX4orS5bCAstzk=
=ZLo1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Richard Conroy

2/12/2007 7:00:00 PM

0

On 2/12/07, David Morton <mortonda@dgrmm.net> wrote:
> > That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I
> > think the article is well worth reading.
>
> I have to disagree with the paper a bit. It seems that the author is
> evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations...
> typical for academia.
>
> If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod_ocaml for apache? are
> there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Is there a a nice
> framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the
> author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML)

OCaml gets a lot of attention mostly as a source of ideas for
language designers, who are designing other languages, not
OCaml.

It has some fantastic features at the language
design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
to speak of. The most sophisticated thing you can do with the
standard distro is read a file.

It *does* have a way of binding to C code. If it exists in C, you can
use it and that's its hand-wavey excuse for not having any APIs.

> The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language
> that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that).

If anything is going to happen with OCaml, it will happen at the
heavy-duty OSS level (like kernel writers). Its getting a lot of attention from
the traditionally C-only crew.

Its feature set is extremely impressive though, if you are comfortable at
working in C, it would probably be an interesting language to learn.

Currently its use in practical concerns is almost zero without it though.

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

2/12/2007 7:12:00 PM

0

Richard Conroy wrote:
> On 2/12/07, David Morton <mortonda@dgrmm.net> wrote:
>> > That's really good. Thanks for sharing. I followed the link. I
>> > think the article is well worth reading.
>>
>> I have to disagree with the paper a bit. It seems that the author is
>> evaluating languages in a vacuum without practical considerations...
>> typical for academia.
>>
>> If he likes OCAML so much, is there a mod_ocaml for apache? are
>> there MIME, SMTP, IMAP libraries available? Is there a a nice
>> framework like Rails to build with? (just picking on it because the
>> author likes it so much. I've never used OCAML)
>
> OCaml gets a lot of attention mostly as a source of ideas for
> language designers, who are designing other languages, not
> OCaml.
>
> It has some fantastic features at the language
> design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
> to speak of. The most sophisticated thing you can do with the
> standard distro is read a file.
>
> It *does* have a way of binding to C code. If it exists in C, you can
> use it and that's its hand-wavey excuse for not having any APIs.
>
>> The pragmatic side of me says I don't have time to look at a language
>> that can't get the job done. (even if you add "yet" to that).
>
> If anything is going to happen with OCaml, it will happen at the
> heavy-duty OSS level (like kernel writers). Its getting a lot of
> attention from
> the traditionally C-only crew.
>
> Its feature set is extremely impressive though, if you are comfortable at
> working in C, it would probably be an interesting language to learn.
>
> Currently its use in practical concerns is almost zero without it though.
>
>
Well ... the folks at INRIA have done some interesting things with it in
their "Coq" proof assistant, including some proofs of program
correctness. I've installed Coq on my machine and plan to play around a
bit with that. If you can prove an OCaml program correct more easily
than you can prove a Ruby program correct **for practical sized
programs**, I'd say it's worth looking at.

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blo...

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

Ara.T.Howard

2/12/2007 9:20:00 PM

0

Clifford Heath

2/13/2007 10:13:00 AM

0

Richard Conroy wrote:
> It has some fantastic features at the language
> design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
> to speak of.

That's funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains
one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages. If the base
language package contains nearly nothing, *that's an advantage*.

Clifford Heath.

Jimmy Kofler

2/13/2007 10:44:00 AM

0

Maybe some projects such as http://ww... or
http://www.o... should have been mentioned in the article.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Richard Conroy

2/13/2007 11:03:00 AM

0

On 2/13/07, Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> wrote:
> Richard Conroy wrote:
> > It has some fantastic features at the language
> > design level. We are talking drool-worthy. And absolutely no library
> > to speak of.
>
> That's funny. Coulda sworn that my Debian package listing contains
> one hundred and forty five maintained ocaml packages.

I didn't get enough time to itemise the OCaml library space. Apologies
if I have misrepresented the language. But I spent some time googling
and chasing resources and didn't find anything, and no real links from
the main page or tutorials. I got the impression that Caml development
basically meant binding to C libraries.

Whats the rubyforge equivalent for (O)Caml? Private e-mail it if you think
this thread has gone too OT. I am very interested. A healthy library
ecology raises OCaml from something to keep an eye on, to immediate
attention.

> If the base
> language package contains nearly nothing, *that's an advantage*.

Agreed. But if I didn't make it clear, my main concern was the availability
of libraries for common development tasks, like database development,
network comms protocols (particularly secure ones). etc.

Yeah, this is getting more than a bit OT, but (O)Caml *is* interesting.