Why Ruby?

[spir]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:22:19 +0100
Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:

> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > Agreed. One issue with the talk is non-acceptance of "the right tool for 
> > the job" (the speaker literally says he's tired of that phrase). There 
> > is one best tool - and that's Ruby. Ahem.
> 
> I find this issue interesting. I think the "the right tool for the job"
> is justification for the existence of multiple languages, but on the 
> other hand, I'd agree with him that it's overused.
> 
> If you consider all problem domains, and then ask: what is the minimum 
> number of languages required to be "the best tool" or "close enough to 
> the best tool" for all those jobs? For sure the minimum number is > 1.
> But I suspect the minimum isn't very high, essentially because most real 
> world tasks involve a combination of several problem domains.
> I think the minimum might be as small as five, and I seriously doubt 
> it's more than a dozen.

I agree with that. This number is around 3 ;-)
"the right tool for the job" is about meaningless for me, since noone would make me program with 99% of existing PLs even if they were proved to be "it". I rather believe in "the right tool for the right person".

Denis
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
vit esse estrany ☣

spir.wikidot.com