The Object-Oriented Programming Language RubyRuby
Testimonial

«Conferences Top 1.6.7 is released»

# Testimonial

We are waiting your impression about Ruby. Mail us.

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz at ruby-team.net>
Programming in Ruby is very fun. Debugging Ruby itself is not fun sometimes ;-)
From: Clemens Hintze <c.hintze at gmx.net>
Like any programmer I know many programming languages. It has took me three weeks to decide to learn Perl, one week for the decision to learn Python and ONE day to decide to learn Ruby!!!
From: Dave Thomas <dave at pragmaticprogrammer.com>
You know, the more I use Ruby, the more I appreciate what a great job you did with it. It truly is a great language, and it deserves to be up there with the Perls and Pythons - I'm convinced now it's more general than both of them.
From Andrew Hunt <andy at pragmaticprogrammer.com>
Ruby is terrific at honoring the "Princple of Least Surprise". I can't think of another language where I can type in code for such a long time and have it run first try!
From dotw at dotw.cjb.net
I must say, I was surprised at how nice Ruby is. :-) I've been using Python for some time, and I didn't really think Ruby could improve on it. To be truthful, I've learned how to do more in Ruby in the past day than I learned in a month of using and reading about Python. Ruby is incredibly simple and straightforward; it's almost shocking how much of the language is actually LOGICAL. Great work! :-)
From Guy N. Hurst <gnhurst at hurstlinks.com>
I would call it charming. Imagine in that description the person being a programmer finding something pleasing in performance.
Also, Ruby has a noble association. Python is either a snake, or an irreverent comedy show. Perl is based on a grain of sand, formed over time in a clam. Nicer. But Ruby is both gem and harmonious warbler (ruby-crowned kinglet). It reigns charmingly over the rest, and is pleasing to all who come across it.
As matz once said,
The purpose of Ruby is to maximize programming pleasure.
Programming in Ruby is extremely fun, for me at least.
Perhaps musical, lively, and noble can be used...
Ruby is a noble programming language. Fit for a king. Ruby rules. Perl is nice for the gates to get there, and no comment about python.
From Mathieu Bouchard <matju at CAM.ORG>
  • Imperative In Ruby, programs are made of statements accessing and modifying the state of variables, executed in a well-defined order. Most popular programming languages are like that.
  • Object-based In Ruby, most operations are made in the context of an object. All values, containers, procedures, classes are objects. Anything referenced by a variable is an object. Thus Ruby is closer to SmallTalk than to Java or Python.
  • Dynamic: It has runtime procedure call dispatching (inheritance polymorphism), runtime definition of new procedures, classes and modules, and runtime parsing. Variables may hold objects of any class (Weak typing). It offers mark and sweep garbage collection so that there is no need to free memory explicitly (even with reference loops).
From Conrad Schneiker <schneik at us.ibm.com>
OK, take the bull by the horns: Ruby the next-generation POST-SCRIPTING language (for those who have outgrown so-called scripting languages).
Alternatively, enchant the bull: Ruby is an ultra-class programming language--i.e. ultra-flexible, ultra-OO, ultra-dynamic, ultra-readable, ultra-maintainable.
Or stand on the shoulder's of giants: Ruby has the flexibility of Perl, the readability of Python, and the dynamic OO power of Smalltalk--all in one convenient package.
From Aleksi Niemela <aleksi.niemela at cinnober.com>
You want code fast, test your ideas, pay little attention to unnecessary details, be able to weld existing technologies, and you end up using scripting languages. You want create bigger, clear, maintainable programs and you count Perl and TCL out. You want be flexible with your language and habits, want to learn one language for small and big tasks and you couldn't use Python. It seemed there's no one language to satisfy most needs. But there is. Ruby is balanced mixture of functionality and imperativeness, real OO programming and tricks for quick hacks..um..solutions, tested and tried technologies.
To me, Ruby is a ruddy language! (In a sense it has a healthy reddish color.)
From David Douthitt <DDouthitt at cuna.com>
I can say why I learned it (which has been quite recently). In my case, any benefit from Ruby had to overcome what benefits there were from using Perl and Korn Shell (both of which are quite powerful!).
  • Wanted to learn Object-Orientated Programming (OOP). I've tried to teach myself Smalltalk (anyone know Pocket Smalltalk? :-) but without a guru to bother with endless and inane questions it gets to be tough and can make one not continue, even if only by apathy and laziness.
  • Code easier to maintain. OOP can be much easier to maintain, and includes many programming ideas which help considerably.
  • Code easier to prove correctness. OOP helps in this area too, helping to make things not only work, but provably correct (or closer to it).
  • Extensible. Another OOP advantage - if you don't like how a feature works, you can rewrite it.
Then there are the reasons I continued to learn it :-)
  • Large base of users and gurus, with quick responses not only from major book authors, but also from recognized Japanese software wizards :-) I'm starting to realize the unrealized importance of a support network, of being able to ask dumb questions and get answers (ofttimes with gentle reminders to read the FAQ :-)
  • Power. The capabilities of Ruby are incredible - networking? Web servers? Amazing.
From Hugh Sasse <hgs at dmu.ac.uk>
Where I heard about it? One of the language lists on the web, or when browsing for Perl information I found references to Ruby as a "successor" to Perl. This was some time back, a vague memory suggests that this was when ruby was at 0.8 or thereabouts. I did not pursue it then as I thought it would be too likely to change.
Why I moved to it? I tried to develop some sockets code. I wanted a more flexible system for development and test than C++ and knew that Perl had sockets in it. However, there are now two sockets libraries in Perl, and I could not find clear documentation on how to use UDP with Perl and one library only. Also, although I had learned Python and have written some useful things in it, I ended up looking for the newer ruby stuff first, and found it had a sockets library that was usable.
I found the OO code in Ruby clearer to read than Perl's. Also, earlier in my code development I found that fact that you could not just extend the Dictionary class in Python, but had to use "contains" rather than "inherits" to go further, rather irritating.
From Dayalan R. Pillay <dayalan at free.net.nz>
Ruby is so elegant and fast, I plan to use only it and Java. One more day with Ruby and I may not need Java.
From John Small <jsmall at laser.net>
Knowing Perl, Python and Smalltalk I learned Ruby in one day. It is more fun to use than Smalltalk yet has the hack power of Perl but without obfuscating your intent.
From Ot Ratsaphong <progress at asiaonline.net.au>
I am currently learning PHP and was planning to learn Python next as a more generic OO programming language, until I discovered Ruby yesterday (27.11.2000). Now, I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to Python a miss. What a pity. I was looking forward to learning Python. It seemed to have everything I wanted. But Ruby is a purer OO language and has all the things I want from Python Plus more. Got to go with the way of the future.
From Bill Pyritz <pyritz at lucent.com>
I have a C++ background. When faced with a problem to solve, I get a mental impression of the solution. In C++, I find that I need to go through several layers of translation before I can express it in the language. With Ruby, the idea seems to naturally express itself in the language. This is the power of Ruby, I believe.
From Eric Benoit <eric at ecks.org>
I've been looking for a good language to figure this OO stuff out with. I was originally considering Java, then Smalltalk, then Python, and then even C++. Ruby, however, seems to be the optimal language in which to learn what OO is all about, without any cruftiness, implementation issues or run-time bothers. Thanks guys.
From Matthias Lampert <ml at sph.de>
After 4 weeks with Ruby I find myself `bewitched, entranced and fascinated' [The Wind In The Willows]. I think it's time for me to study the source to find out where Matz has implemented Ruby's ability to read my mind.
I believe Ruby can do a very great job to give a lot of students an idea about the principles and techniques of OOP before they are swallowed by all the quicksand C++ and Java have on their paths. As far as I'm concerned, I will encourage them greatly to take this step first.
From Christoph Jungen <Christoph.Jungen at lt.admin.ch>
I used to work with Smalltalk for several years and I loved this language (pure OO, everything is an object, etc.) and to work with it. Then, unfortunately, I had to "go back" to develop software with C/C++... and I think, I became obviously less productive than I was before. But a few weeks ago, I first heard of Ruby, immediately bought "the book" (Thomas/Hunt), downloaded "the stuff" and started using it at my job, doing all the tasks writing beatuful code again like in the old days... and I immediately felt in love with this new language! The language is really great - the I only thing I'm still missing at the moment is the nice integrated working environement I had using Smalltalk-80, but that's only a detail...
From John Johnson <john at johnjohnsonsoftware.com>
Ruby is a Hoopless language. All other languages I've learned have a certain point that you come to which I call "The Hoops." You don't realize they are there when you begin learning the language. They present themselves when you start actually doing work in the language. That is when you meet them. They are the hoops you have to jump through to get your work done. With it's built-in iterators, introspection, method_missing, etc. Ruby is a Hoopless language.
Another testament to Ruby's difference are the adjectives used to describe it. I've never heard "beautiful, elegant, charming, etc." used to describe any programming language. Ruby has a very bright future. Thanks Matz!
From Bill Pyritz <pyritz at lucent.com>
Just wanted to let you know that Ruby is being used within Lucent on a 3G wireless telephony product. I have written a parser and code generator amounting to ~6K ruby code that generates ~150K C++ source code.
So, Ruby is being used within the telephony world on a critical application. Next time you use your cellular phone, you can imagine the Ruby generated code playing a critical role in the connection!
From Rick Bates <rick10811 at hotmail.com>
Just wanted to say thanks for the great language. I've never ran across something that I started to like so quickly. I think ruby is the ONLY language I've used that I can 'figure out', before actually learning. Rather, if I don't know how to do something, I can usually guess how, and it works...almost as if ruby is a mind reading OO language. I can't wait to see it become more popular. One of my favorite things about ruby has to be that it is OO when you need it, but you can 'ignore' that if you don't. In other words, I can program with a style very similar to perl and other scripting languages and never really have to mess with OO concepts if I dont feel like it. This all makes ruby, in my opinion, one of the easiest and most powerfull scripting languages around, and the best.
From Craig M. Moran <MoranCM at navair.navy.mil>
The power of C++. The ease of scripting with Perl. More fun and easier than both! It is so very nice to watch a masterpiece at work. I come to work and launch my Ruby script then kick back and watch in awe as it does 45 minutes worth of work for me unattended!!! Mind you, the work it does used to be accomplished in no less than 4 weeks by hand. This is powerful stuff, my friends.
From flx frnzs <matschke.felix gmx.de>
I am a structural engineer and use Ruby ... every single day. Mainly for small scripts that to that nasty work that nobody would do for me and that could have been written in many other languages. But there is more: I don't know wether there are many engineers out there using object oriented programming features in production environments, but there should. My programs now do a lot more than what could have been done all these other ways. Stop fiddling with huge Excel-files and VBA. Stop compiling fortran77. Start programming in a language that optimizes programming time, not execution time.
Last update on January 17, 2004 15:53

«Conferences Top 1.6.7 is released»