Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Ary Manzana]

On 3/9/12 6:21 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Ary Manzana"<ary at esperanto.org.ar>  wrote in message
> news:jjdqe4$1oeb$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>
>> Indeed, count can be used to count elements:
>>
>> ruby-1.8.7-p352 :002>  [1, 2, 3, 3, 3].count 3
>>   =>  3
>> ruby-1.8.7-p352 :004>  [1, 2, 3, 3, 3].count&:odd?
>>   =>  4
>> ruby-1.8.7-p352 :005>  [1, 2, 3, 3, 3].count { |x| x<= 2 }
>>   =>  2
>>
>
> Interesting idea.
>
>>>
>>> IMAO, this sort of "write your mind and somehow it just works" thing
>>> only encourages lazy programming (guessing what something does without
>>> knowing for sure, and copy-n-pasting code without understanding it,
>>> which leads to bit rot and hideous patchwork code that houses all sorts
>>> of subtle bugs and corner-case failures).
>>
>> We also write lots of tests in Ruby. :-P
>
> Writing plenty of tests is good no matter what, but it's an inferior
> substitute for proper compile-time checks. Not that that's applicable to
> this "count vs length vs size" subdiscussion, of course. Just a general
> comment on the dynamic world's fairly common "lots of tests" excuse.

True. I'd like to find (or do) a language that combines both of two worlds.

I started one, but I don't have much time to continue it and also I'm 
stuck with design/implementation decisions. :-P

https://github.com/asterite/crystal

(not everything in the bullet list is implemented, those are just 
wishes, but everything in "samples" compiles and runs)

And other people had similar ideas:

http://whitequark.org/blog/2011/12/21/statically-compiled-ruby/