Why Ruby?

[Simen kjaeraas]

bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote:

> Jacob Carlborg:
>
>> 1 D: foo(writeln(3)); // lazy argument
>> 1 Scala: foo(_ * _)
>> 2 C#: foo(x => x * x);
>> 3 Scala: foo((x) => x * x)
>> 4 Python: foo(lambda x: x * x)
>> 5 Ruby: foo { |bar| x * x }
>> 5 Ruby: foo do |x| x * x end
>> 6 D: foo((int x) { return x * x; });
>> 7 C++1x: foo([](int x){ return x * x; });
>> 7 Apple's (Objective)-C(++) block extension: foo(^(int x){ return x *  
>> x; });
>> 8 JavaScript: foo(function(x){ return x * x })
>> 9 PHP: foo(function ($x) use($fooBar) { return $x * $x; }); // "use" is
>> used for explicitly telling what variables should be available when the
>> scope is gone.
>
> (In D there are template lambdas too). This topic was discussed some in  
> past. I like a syntax similar to:
> foo({x,y => x * y})
> foo({int x, int y => x * y})

I really like this. The curly braces clearly show it to be a new scope,
and the syntax is concise and understandable.

-- 
Simen