Why Ruby?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:ieji4j$10k5$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Simen kjaeraas wrote:
>> The problem of D's lambda syntax is it is optimized for longer
>> functions. Usually, the delegates I write are one line long. I cannot
>> see that this syntax collides with anything at the moment, but feel free
>> to enlighten me:
>>
>> { => 4; }
>> { a => 2*a; }
>> { a, b => a>b; }
>> { => @ + @; } // turns into { a, b => a + b; }
>>
>
> If size and simplicity of typing are critical, are those really better 
> than:
>
>   "a>b"
>
> ?

Yes, because in practice "a>b" must end up being evaluated in the wrong 
scope. I've used std.algorithm very little so far, and yet I've still found 
that limitation to be a problem.

There's also the minor quibble that "a>b" doesn't get highlighted right, but 
that's obviously solvable with q{a>b}.