Subj : ruby and perl
To   : tony summerfelt
From : Maurice Kinal
Date : Sun Feb 20 2005 10:36 am

Hey tony!

Feb 20 12:24 05, tony summerfelt wrote to Maurice Kinal:

 ts> for a quickie command line program, i still use perl.

Me too but also ...

 ts> if i need a quick gui program, i still use tcl/tk...

No gui here so that should explian the " ... " in my above reply.  Perl takes 
the place of what tcl/tk is to you.

 ts> ruby has been the only language that let me write the functions i've 
 ts> been thinking about for ages, but were never able to implement 
 ts> easily.

Understood.  Your above comment is what places OO on the plus side of the 
"usefulness" equation of any application/language/whatever methinks.

 ts> for example, one of the things the logging program/module will let 
 ts> you do is trim/archive (several different ways) a log file while at 
 ts> the same time still logging information.

Interesting.

 ts> i'm currently heavily testing a program (using the log module) that 
 ts> monitors every log file on my system.

Also interesting.

 ts> threads are the easiest to use that i've seen in a while.

That was one of their claims on the homepage.

 ts> best part is that the ruby code is completely portable...the 
 ts> threading code will run under dos without a problem...

Right.  That is what they claimed.  If true then it would even be more "useful" 
then Perl when talking portability but then again that would mean that the 
Windows boxes would require a Ruby interpretor, or at least here at 
Kumalockasun it would mean that.  Definetely something worthy of consideration.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.1.2
 * Origin: Coffin Point - Ladysmith, BC Canada (1:153/401.1)

.