Ruby performance woes
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: comp.lang.lisp charter
Next: Casio Collection Men's GOLD LABEL Edifice Watch - Replica Watch Fake
From: Jeff on 23 Apr 2008 12:30 > > given the emphasis in the ruby community on beautiful looking code, i > > can also see problems for lisp there. > > Have you _seen_ Ruby code? It looks like what one would expect if Perl > caught syphilis. It's painfully ugly. Why Ruby is an acceptable Perl - http://artfulcode.net/articles/why-ruby-acceptable-perl/
From: Sohail Somani on 23 Apr 2008 12:48 Robert Uhl wrote: > Sean T Allen <sean(a)monkeysnatchbanana.com> writes: >> given the emphasis in the ruby community on beautiful looking code, i >> can also see problems for lisp there. > > Have you _seen_ Ruby code? It looks like what one would expect if Perl > caught syphilis. It's painfully ugly. I'll grant that Lisp parens > aren't pretty either, but once they disappear Lisp is awfully easy on > the eyes. Python is the same way. Been doing a lot of it the past few days and it makes my eyes bleed. In fact, to generate XML, I took a cue from the Lisp libraries and abused tuples as s-expressions :-) Might make a post about it one of these days.
From: Sohail Somani on 23 Apr 2008 12:49 Didier Verna wrote: > Robert Uhl <eadmund42(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > >> Have you _seen_ Ruby code? It looks like what one would expect if Perl >> caught syphilis. It's painfully ugly. I'll grant that Lisp parens >> aren't pretty either, but once they disappear Lisp is awfully easy on >> the eyes. > > I guess the uglyness in Ruby also disappear for people programming > Ruby all day long. The same goes for offside-rule based languages like > Haskell or Python. You can't really make an argument out of that. You > have to get used to a language before starting to complain about it. > > But I agree; Ruby code is ugly ;-) I think the ugliness disappears only if you don't know of any alternatives. I also agree: Ruby code is ugly ;-)
From: Nathaniel Calloway on 23 Apr 2008 13:48 Robert Uhl <eadmund42(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> writes: > Sean T Allen <sean(a)monkeysnatchbanana.com> writes: >> >> given the emphasis in the ruby community on beautiful looking code, i >> can also see problems for lisp there. > > Have you _seen_ Ruby code? It looks like what one would expect if Perl > caught syphilis. It's painfully ugly. I'll grant that Lisp parens > aren't pretty either, but once they disappear Lisp is awfully easy on > the eyes. Every programming language is beautiful in a different way. Whereas lisp is a regimented anitomical study (its about the beauty of a simple curve), ruby is... well... a Jackson Pollock. -Nat
From: EL on 23 Apr 2008 16:29
Brian Adkins schrieb: > Now, if you can get an equivalent, or superior, development > productivity (I'm referring to web apps only) with a Lispy solution > along with faster speed, that would be fantastic, Hop looks good: http://hop.inria.fr/ Although it is in Scheme, not CL > but given the track > record, I think we'll see dozens of mediocre (at best) web frameworks > spring up rather than one good one that provides the productivity > close to Rails. This is true for other languages as well... Although I must say that Rails would be to big for me. How much of it do you really need - in contrast to what you must learn to get your stuff done? When I looked at Rails first, I watched one of their tutorials. I thought "Fine, if you want to develop a wiki this might be the way to go. But what if you want to develop something *new*? Something that is not there already? This is probably complicated." And guess what? This guy at the cited page mentions exactly this, confirming my very first impression (fourth to last paragraph): "According to Bray, the prescriptive nature of the Rails framework suits most web front-ended applications' database batch needs when it comes to create, repeat, update and delete. The downside? If you need your database calls to do something a little different, you're on your own." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- Eckhard |