Besides implying that I am a bonehead, he embarks on a listing of Ruby's current failings. In this, our beloved Thought Leader exposes himself as fairly ignorant of even rather basic knowledge of Ruby (note: ignorant, not moronic, or felony stupid, or ... boneheaded). He later exposes his desire have a little Ruby on the mainframe (you gotta feel for the guy, he must be washing hands raw by now).
Ignorance is bliss:
8. Ruby seems to be missing something that is otherwise fundamental in other languages which is support for Regular Expressions.
Uhm, Ruby has had regular expressions since, like, the before time. Currently Ruby's Regexen support all but a few advanced features found in Perl's regexen, and with the coming integration of the Oniguruma regex engine (which can be compiled in *now* if desired) a few more advanced regex features will be in Ruby's standard regex repertoire.
9. Does anyone agree that the notion of packages / namespaces should be a part of every modern language?
Uhm, modular namespaces with, wait for it ... modules, since the before time.
10. I also couldn't find the equivalent of instance variables. Wouldn't that make reuse at an enterprise-level somewhat problematic?
Uhm, like, since before the before time even. You can touch the raw instance variables all you want (within the class) or more safely access through accessor methods.
11. Shouldn't the notion of methods being public, private and protected also be a part of every modern language?
One wonders were this is coming from. Public, protected, and private are most certainly there, and have better semantics than in some other languages.
I am beginning to think all of this controversial posturing is McGovern's way to be fed all the Ruby information he wants while remaining conservatively positioned within his own market, and avoiding actually participating in the Ruby community.
Previous Topic
