Why Ruby?

[so]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:51:34 +0200, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-12-19 01:01, Walter Bright wrote:
>> 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"
>>
>> ?
>
> No, that syntax is not better.
>

Ignoring technical limitations:

>> "a>b"

is to me, looks million times better than these 4 or other absurd syntaxes  
proposed on this thread.

>> { => 4; }
>> { a => 2*a; }
>> { a, b => a>b; }
>> { => @ + @; } // turns into { a, b => a + b; }

You might call this a hack, fine!

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/