<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
On 30/05/2010 2:19 p.m., Daniel Pittman wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Ruby looks promising. I have been learning it for several days and feel that<br>
I has the power of most of others (perl, python, java, etc..)<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
Just don't fall for their "objects all the way" and "meta-programming"<br>
bollocks; when you start to poke at it each interpreter is randomly different,<br>
but they pretty much all make it impossible to do serious meta-programming<br>
because the internals are randomly incoherent and contain strange bundles of<br>
oddly thrown together code.<br>
<br>
It isn't terrible, I grant you, but it surely is not as impressive as their<br>
marketing makes out. (Not, really, that any language is. :)<div><div></div><br></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br>Perl provides fab Meta Programming functionality via Moose (or more specifically, Class::MOP). It's complete and elegant, and abstracts away Perl's crufty bits ... so you don't have to wonder about whether "the internals are randomly incoherent and contain strange bundles of oddly thrown together code."</div>
</div>