Re: Ruby as First Language
- From: "Robert Klemme" <bob.news@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:31:17 +0100
Dave Burt wrote:
Robert Klemme wrote:
OTOH there is no *direct* access to system libs (as from C for
example). For that you would have to write a C extension. Still, I
think to initially learn to develop software Ruby is a pretty good
choice.
Just to knock down your only negative point a little, Robert, there
is DL, which makes accessing C libraries about equal in pain to doing
it in C, no?
I forgot that. Yeah, with DL it seems reasonably easy. Good point!
Me, I'm all for learning Ruby as a first language. My first language
was Basic, and I do reckon that it probably doesn't matter too much
what you pick, but an important factor is being able to actually
produce something cool/fun/useful as you go. (Games, for instance.)
I wouldn't go that far. For example, at the time I was using BASIC there
were no functions and you had to work with GOSUB and GOTO for
modularization; for me this is a major drawback. I rather recommend to
use PASCAL (no kidding) over ancient BASIC's. I know current BASIC
dialects are much better - but then again, there are so many of them...
Learning a second language will be significantly easier after you've
learnt one already, almost regardless of the language.
I'm not sure; it certainly helps, but I guess the paradigmatic distance
(TM) of the second language makes a difference. I guess it's easier to go
from C++ to SmallTalk (both OO) than from Lisp to BASIC...
Choose Ruby.
Definitively! :-)
robert
.
- References:
- Ruby as First Language
- From: woodyee
- Re: Ruby as First Language
- From: Robert Klemme
- Re: Ruby as First Language
- From: Dave Burt
- Ruby as First Language
- Prev by Date: Re: Ruby as First Language
- Next by Date: Re: Diakonos gem
- Previous by thread: Re: Ruby as First Language
- Next by thread: Re: Ruby as First Language
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|