Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!talisker.lacave.net!lacave.net!not-for-mail From: Everett L Williams II Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby Subject: Re: functional paradigm taking over Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 06:31:08 -0500 Organization: Service de news de lacave.net Lines: 63 Message-ID: <4D99ABF9.60407@classicnet.net> References: <6aeb13eb26b5656ca2247601ed369bcf@ruby-forum.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bristol.highgroove.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: talisker.lacave.net 1301916690 68891 65.111.164.187 (4 Apr 2011 11:31:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@lacave.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:31:30 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <6aeb13eb26b5656ca2247601ed369bcf@ruby-forum.com> X-Received-From: This message has been automatically forwarded from the ruby-talk mailing list by a gateway at comp.lang.ruby. If it is SPAM, it did not originate at comp.lang.ruby. Please report the original sender, and not us. Thanks! For more details about this gateway, please visit: http://blog.grayproductions.net/categories/the_gateway X-Mail-Count: 380907 X-Ml-Name: ruby-talk X-Gateway-Modified: [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] X-Rubymirror: Yes X-Ruby-Talk: <4D99ABF9.60407@classicnet.net> Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.ruby:2258 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] *Mike,* Mike Stephens wrote: > This thread has been touching upon three issues - functional languages > as a way of expressing problems, Excel as a language environment, and > the programmer. > > > > When you consider the merits of functional languages, I believe you > should take into account not only the elegance with which you can > express what you want to do, or how amenable it is to eg parallel > processing. You should also consider whether it strikes a better balance > between such issues and accessibility. Does all your terseness and > 'elegance' give you a justifiable advantage over something simpler which > could be more easily handled by a person of less capability? > *You have restated my point in much more pleasant language, and with commendable precision. The average person who wishes to program a solution to a problem cares not one whit whether the tool they find most accessible qualifies as a programming language by another person's definition. They just want to get their problem solved. Personally, though I have been arguning the side of Excel here, I hate spreadsheets. It is arguable that almost anything that can be accomplished with a database and implementing language such as SQL can be accomplished with a spreadsheet. I just happen to prefer the DB way of describing and thinking about data. But, as I have said, I have seen some absolutely amazing things doen with spreadsheets. My particular crutch for dealing with DB's is Alpha 5, but there are dozens of such solutions out there. I happen to be a person with 45 years in the computing field, with specific knowledge of lambda calculus, Turing completeness, object orientation, structured programming, relational databases, and an host of other such things, but I have also learned that the real purpose of computer programs is to get work done unless I am specifically researching computing as a science. "Turing completeness" is a term of art that could be replaced in the minds of 99.9% of even fairly technically competent programmers with any other reference for which they have poor understanding. If being TC means that the tool can get the job done accurately and efficiently, including the time that it takes to create a program, then they are all for it. Most could not even accurately describe a Turing machine in the original sense of that definition. Denigrating another person's choice of tools will certainly not make that person likely to seek your advice again, nor consider you helpful. If you have confused your switchblade with a Swiss Army knife, then you are more foolish than the person you are denigrating. Since this is a Ruby forum, sometimes the best answer is to refer a person to docs and/or books for deeper learning rather than try to answer the first problem that they run into as if that will really help them make efficient use of Ruby. Help with installing and making Ruby work properly are always appropriate, but only time and study and practice will actually allow people to program with any confidence. When people come from other programming disciplines, comparison of modalities and techniques are usually helpful, but fanboy expressions of "mine is bigger and/or better than yours" are not. Eveerett L.(Rett) Williams II *