[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ruby-talk
Subject:    Re: Ruby/Rails as a starter language?
From:       Navindra Umanee <navindra () cs ! mcgill ! ca>
Date:       2005-07-19 7:41:13
Message-ID: 20050719034109.B16573 () cs ! mcgill ! ca
[Download RAW message or body]

James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:
> OO is a fairly straightforward concept.  It gets messy with different 
> implementations; Ruby's is quite clean.  People are better off going 
> straight to OO than trying to creep up on it via clumsy "newbie" 
> alternatives.

Java, at least old Java, or Python would probably be an easier
introduction to OO.

I still find Ruby's OO to be mind-boggling with its classes are
objects and objects are classes, class variables and class instance
variables, virtual classes, self and so forth.  Fact is, if you really
want to understand Ruby's object model it also helps if you go down to
the C level implementation.[1]

Ruby is fascinating and satisfying, but I'm not entirely sure exposure
to such an object model is entirely appropriate for a newbie...
Although certainly much of it can be ignored at the beginning and
introduced in steps, a newbie might be more satisfied with, say,
Python since it would probably be easier to grasp in its entirety.

Cheers,
Navin.

[1] http://whytheluckystiff.net/articles/seeingMetaclassesClearly.html

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]