Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: SketchUp -> seeking Ruby overview in Rebolese

From: tim::johnsons-web::com at: 8-Aug-2004 15:48

* Jason Cunliffe <[jasonic--nomadics--org]> [040808 09:36]:
> Hi > > Does anyone here have Ruby experience?
Do not in practical terms, but I did buy a couple of books, and read up on it from a research perspective.
> If so, I would very much appreciate any thoughts you have about Ruby from a > Rebol perspective.
see below...
> At first glance it seems to be halfway between Python and REBOL.
My impression was that the syntax was influenced by perl and the object oriented schema was influenced by smalltalk and was probably as close to smalltalk's *very* OOP approach. Many smalltalk programmers consider smalltalk to be the 'original' OOP language *and* the best, casting dispersions on 'milder' approaches used by such as C++ and (even 'milder', python) I've noted that ruby shows performance speeds less than perl and python on benchmarks. I wouldn't be surprised if that is a result of the great overhead of message passing, builtin methods and members, etc. In a round-about way, I would compare the stronger OOP methods of python (which I code in about equal percentage of time to rebol) in the following: (and these are my experiences only, of course) It seems to take about 30% more code to do something in python as in rebol, sometimes distinctly more than that, for instance the html rendering resources that I use for python are *way* more verbose than Andrew Martins 'ML dialect, which I use extensively for rebol. On the other hand, the more disciplined approach of python seems (in my experienc) to lend to greater scalability, easier maintenance, and less unexpected effects than rebol.
> Ruby code is short and readable, uses blocks with methods in very direct > powerful manner. > > Why Ruby?
Frankly, ruby's greater reliance and usage of OOP may very well cause it to catch on further as increasing processor speeds make the 'overhead' issue moot. BTW: speaking of OOP approaches, there is a system called "dynace", which is an extension of Ansi C (not C++). It is inspired by CLOS and smalltalk, and uses a custom-built preprocessor. I looked at it a few years ago, before transitioning from C to C++. In retrospect, I wish I'd taken up dynace rather than C++. *Way* less reliance on header files.... My $00.02 worth. tim
> Well I've started using a superb 3D design tool call 'SketchUp' for some > architectural projects. > SketchUp uses Ruby for its scripting API, so I decided to explore Ruby. > > For people who think with a pen in their hand or sketch on napkins all the > time like me, this is the most intuitive, fun, productive 3D software I've > ever used. > Thanks mainly to its [patented] inference engine and the simple focus in its > design philosophy. > If REBOL was a 3D design tool I think it would look a lot like SketchUp :-) > Like Rebol, SketchUp is a highly interactive design tool. It invites one to > start modeling in a simple sketchy mode, working on basic spatial massing, > organizing these as reusable components,then returning later them, add > details and make changes. > It's being in design schools where I hear it is very popular. > > demo [PC/Mac] and tutorials available at > > thanks > - Jason > > -- > To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to rebol-request > at with unsubscribe as the subject.
-- Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]>