Why Ruby?

Don nospam at nospam.com
Fri Dec 17 17:02:06 PST 2010


Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> This is very serious. Walter and the rest always complain that C++ is very hard to
> understand, has a very long and verbose syntax and only "a few" can really master
> it. And look at that code. It's impossible to understand. One has to jump from one
> place to another, back and forth, wondering "Why that alias?" and so on. The
> nested depth of curly braces go beyond four and five sometimes. Oh, wait. But I
> can do "scope(exit) ..." and then I save myself one level.
> 
> So imagine if it takes all that effort to understand what it is written, how hard
> it should have been to write it. Probably it's the result of "this doesn't work,
> let's try this as a hack" and everything ends up being a huge hack.
> 
> Please, please, please, look back at what you've done and think hard if it is
> really the right way to go. Everything seems overly complex by now.
> 
> </just trying to help>

Completely agree, although note that a large fraction of the complexity 
of Phobos comes from workarounds for compiler bugs.
The language right now is IMHO *far* too complicated --  especially as 
regards to parameter passing (maybe everything else is OK, not sure).


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list