Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#ActualSuperVGA

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:04 AM




If everything in OOP had to be a class, we'd be writing code like below, which we don't --
Assertion( Comparison( Adder( Integer(1), Integer(1) ).Result(), Integer(2) ).Result() ).Check();


[source lang="ruby"]smile if Ruby.isBeautiful?[/source]

[source lang="c"]is_readable? depend_on_dev() : ruby_char_saver();[/source]


"Programmer" (n) - A person so utterly maladjusted that they can take a language as beautiful and expressive as Ruby and write something that looks like a declaration of war composed by a drunken, illiterate Klingon.

Some people's Ruby makes me want to hurt myself.
...
Or them.

lol


That's true. Yet have I to see a language that assures whatever is written to look beautiful.
There are war-declaring drunk illiterate klingons everywhere. :D
I do think Hodgmans example involved somewhat more levels of encapsulation, but I do get what you mean.

#3SuperVGA

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:48 AM




If everything in OOP had to be a class, we'd be writing code like below, which we don't --
Assertion( Comparison( Adder( Integer(1), Integer(1) ).Result(), Integer(2) ).Result() ).Check();


[source lang="ruby"]smile if Ruby.isBeautiful?[/source]

[source lang="c"]is_readable? depend_on_dev() : ruby_char_saver();[/source]


"Programmer" (n) - A person so utterly maladjusted that they can take a language as beautiful and expressive as Ruby and write something that looks like a declaration of war composed by a drunken, illiterate Klingon.

Some people's Ruby makes me want to hurt myself.
...
Or them.

lol


That's true. Yet have I to see a language that assures whatever is written to look beautiful, though.
There are war-declaring drunk illiterate klingons everywhere. :D
I do think Hodgmans example involved somewhat more levels of encapsulation, but I do get what you mean.

#2SuperVGA

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:47 AM




If everything in OOP had to be a class, we'd be writing code like below, which we don't --
Assertion( Comparison( Adder( Integer(1), Integer(1) ).Result(), Integer(2) ).Result() ).Check();


[source lang="ruby"]smile if Ruby.isBeautiful?[/source]

[source lang="c"]is_readable? depend_on_dev() : ruby_char_saver();[/source]


"Programmer" (n) - A person so utterly maladjusted that they can take a language as beautiful and expressive as Ruby and write something that looks like a declaration of war composed by a drunken, illiterate Klingon.

Some people's Ruby makes me want to hurt myself.
...
Or them.

lol


That's true. Yet have I to see a language that assures whatever is written to look beautiful, though.
There are war-declaring drunk illiterate klingons everywhere. :D
I do think Hodgmans example involved somewhat more envapsulation, but I do get what you mean.

#1SuperVGA

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:45 AM




If everything in OOP had to be a class, we'd be writing code like below, which we don't --
Assertion( Comparison( Adder( Integer(1), Integer(1) ).Result(), Integer(2) ).Result() ).Check();


[source lang="ruby"]smile if Ruby.isBeautiful?[/source]

[source lang="c"]is_readable? depend_on_dev() : ruby_char_saver();[/source]


"Programmer" (n) - A person so utterly maladjusted that they can take a language as beautiful and expressive as Ruby and write something that looks like a declaration of war composed by a drunken, illiterate Klingon.

Some people's Ruby makes me want to hurt myself.
...
Or them.

lol


That's true. Yet have I to see a language that assures whatever is written to look beautiful.
I do think Hodgmans example involved somewhat more envapsulation, but I do get what you mean.

PARTNERS