11 likes
8 Comments
morganyundt47 When he meets the Pope, the Pope kisses his ring
coriesimonis3 Language designers want to design the perfect language. They want to be able to say, 'My language is perfect. It can do everything.' But it's just plain impossible to design a perfect language, because there are two ways to look at a language. One way is by looking at what can be done with that language. The other is by looking at how we feel using that language-how we feel while programming.
almost 2 years ago •
herbvon13 In our daily lives as programmers, we process text strings a lot. So I tried to work hard on text processing, namely the string class and regular expressions. Regular expressions are built into the language and are very tuned up for use.
almost 2 years ago •
nathanielterry37 Smart people underestimate the ordinarity of ordinary people.
almost 2 years ago •
coriesimonis3 Ruby inherited the Perl philosophy of having more than one way to do the same thing. I inherited that philosophy from Larry Wall, who is my hero actually. I want to make Ruby users free. I want to give them the freedom to choose.
almost 2 years ago •
nathanielterry37 From the viewpoint of what you can do, therefore, languages do differ - but the differences are limited. For example, Python and Ruby provide almost the same power to the programmer.
almost 2 years ago •
johnsmith88 Smart people underestimate the ordinarity of ordinary people.
almost 2 years ago •
leocronin59 Most of the tasks we do are for humans. For example, a tax calculation is counting numbers so the government can pull money out from my wallet, but government consists of humans.
almost 2 years ago •
dawnetreutel87 Actually, I didn't make the claim that Ruby follows the principle of least surprise. Someone felt the design of Ruby follows that philosophy, so they started saying that. I didn't bring that up, actually.
almost 2 years ago •