<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_22_1423221</id>
	<title>The State of Ruby VMs &mdash; Ruby Renaissance</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258905540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>igrigorik writes <i>"In the short span of just a couple of years, the Ruby VM space has evolved to more than just a handful of choices: MRI, JRuby, IronRuby, MacRuby, Rubinius, MagLev, REE and BlueRuby. Four of these VMs will hit 1.0 status in the upcoming year and will open up entirely new possibilities for the language &mdash; Mac apps via MacRuby, Ruby in the browser via Silverlight, object persistence via Smalltalk VM, and so forth. This article takes a <a href="http://www.igvita.com/2009/11/20/state-of-ruby-vms-ruby-renaissance/">detailed look at the past year, the progress of each project</a>, and where the community is heading. It's an exciting time to be a Rubyist."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>igrigorik writes " In the short span of just a couple of years , the Ruby VM space has evolved to more than just a handful of choices : MRI , JRuby , IronRuby , MacRuby , Rubinius , MagLev , REE and BlueRuby .
Four of these VMs will hit 1.0 status in the upcoming year and will open up entirely new possibilities for the language    Mac apps via MacRuby , Ruby in the browser via Silverlight , object persistence via Smalltalk VM , and so forth .
This article takes a detailed look at the past year , the progress of each project , and where the community is heading .
It 's an exciting time to be a Rubyist .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>igrigorik writes "In the short span of just a couple of years, the Ruby VM space has evolved to more than just a handful of choices: MRI, JRuby, IronRuby, MacRuby, Rubinius, MagLev, REE and BlueRuby.
Four of these VMs will hit 1.0 status in the upcoming year and will open up entirely new possibilities for the language — Mac apps via MacRuby, Ruby in the browser via Silverlight, object persistence via Smalltalk VM, and so forth.
This article takes a detailed look at the past year, the progress of each project, and where the community is heading.
It's an exciting time to be a Rubyist.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195448</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258921080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing stopping you from writing a Ruby DOM interface, and modifying your favorite browser to understand [script type="text/ruby"] tags on websites. It's all designed to be language-neutral, I have no idea why there's never been an effort to create more language options. (Well, IE had ActiveX, but that was never picked-up for obvious reasons.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing stopping you from writing a Ruby DOM interface , and modifying your favorite browser to understand [ script type = " text/ruby " ] tags on websites .
It 's all designed to be language-neutral , I have no idea why there 's never been an effort to create more language options .
( Well , IE had ActiveX , but that was never picked-up for obvious reasons .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing stopping you from writing a Ruby DOM interface, and modifying your favorite browser to understand [script type="text/ruby"] tags on websites.
It's all designed to be language-neutral, I have no idea why there's never been an effort to create more language options.
(Well, IE had ActiveX, but that was never picked-up for obvious reasons.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194172</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258911420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who say stupid shit like "Ruby is awesome" and "JavaScript is awesome" are the same sort of stupid fuckers who say stuff like "PHP is awesome".</p><p>First off, JavaScript is pure shit in every way possible. It's a mid-1990s hack that has been taken way, way, way too far. It's the client-side mistake that's equivalent the the server-side PHP abomination. JavaScript and PHP are both mountains of steaming, worm-infested cow feces.</p><p>Ruby is basically dumbed-down Perl. It retains the shitty syntax, but removes the powerful semantics and flexibility that are Perl's only redeeming qualities.</p><p>Clearly, Python and Clojure are the way to go these days. Even C# and VB.NET are more respectable languages that JavaScript, Ruby and PHP, and that's pretty fucking sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who say stupid shit like " Ruby is awesome " and " JavaScript is awesome " are the same sort of stupid fuckers who say stuff like " PHP is awesome " .First off , JavaScript is pure shit in every way possible .
It 's a mid-1990s hack that has been taken way , way , way too far .
It 's the client-side mistake that 's equivalent the the server-side PHP abomination .
JavaScript and PHP are both mountains of steaming , worm-infested cow feces.Ruby is basically dumbed-down Perl .
It retains the shitty syntax , but removes the powerful semantics and flexibility that are Perl 's only redeeming qualities.Clearly , Python and Clojure are the way to go these days .
Even C # and VB.NET are more respectable languages that JavaScript , Ruby and PHP , and that 's pretty fucking sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who say stupid shit like "Ruby is awesome" and "JavaScript is awesome" are the same sort of stupid fuckers who say stuff like "PHP is awesome".First off, JavaScript is pure shit in every way possible.
It's a mid-1990s hack that has been taken way, way, way too far.
It's the client-side mistake that's equivalent the the server-side PHP abomination.
JavaScript and PHP are both mountains of steaming, worm-infested cow feces.Ruby is basically dumbed-down Perl.
It retains the shitty syntax, but removes the powerful semantics and flexibility that are Perl's only redeeming qualities.Clearly, Python and Clojure are the way to go these days.
Even C# and VB.NET are more respectable languages that JavaScript, Ruby and PHP, and that's pretty fucking sad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30200210</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258970760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I feel like metaprogramming is an integral part of Ruby programming, whereas, in Python, it runs contrary to the spirit of "one way to do it", but Python does support metaprogramming and plenty of people are putting it to good use.</p></div><p>You have heard of the concept of functional programming, have you? If functions are first-class citizens in data-type world, there is no separation between functions and data (or algorithms and data structures) anymore. So there is no point in a word like &ldquo;metaprogramming&rdquo;. What those languages support, is metaprogramming. And it&rsquo;s sometimes shocking how much it <em>exactly</em> looks like Haskell (where everybody steals from nowadays). ^^</p><p>JavaScript also belongs into that family.</p><p>As soon as you understand Haskell, suddenly, all those languages become <em>much</em> more intuitive, expressive and useful. (I love higher-order functions! ^^)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I feel like metaprogramming is an integral part of Ruby programming , whereas , in Python , it runs contrary to the spirit of " one way to do it " , but Python does support metaprogramming and plenty of people are putting it to good use.You have heard of the concept of functional programming , have you ?
If functions are first-class citizens in data-type world , there is no separation between functions and data ( or algorithms and data structures ) anymore .
So there is no point in a word like    metaprogramming    .
What those languages support , is metaprogramming .
And it    s sometimes shocking how much it exactly looks like Haskell ( where everybody steals from nowadays ) .
^ ^ JavaScript also belongs into that family.As soon as you understand Haskell , suddenly , all those languages become much more intuitive , expressive and useful .
( I love higher-order functions !
^ ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I feel like metaprogramming is an integral part of Ruby programming, whereas, in Python, it runs contrary to the spirit of "one way to do it", but Python does support metaprogramming and plenty of people are putting it to good use.You have heard of the concept of functional programming, have you?
If functions are first-class citizens in data-type world, there is no separation between functions and data (or algorithms and data structures) anymore.
So there is no point in a word like “metaprogramming”.
What those languages support, is metaprogramming.
And it’s sometimes shocking how much it exactly looks like Haskell (where everybody steals from nowadays).
^^JavaScript also belongs into that family.As soon as you understand Haskell, suddenly, all those languages become much more intuitive, expressive and useful.
(I love higher-order functions!
^^)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194606</id>
	<title>Big deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258914180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who outside of the Ruby and Rails communities honestly gives a crap about the "Ruby Renaissance"? I've worked with Ruby for over a year and a half, and I can say with absolute confidence that the language is horrible. You can flame back to this all you want, the fact remains that it's a slow blob and throwing more hardware at it is a stupid argument. No major VM is going to make it rival the top languages in raw processing power (C/C++/Java even Python). And Rails "automagic" combined with Ruby's inability to report exceptions in a meaninful way (the backtrace is 99\% rubbish, and often reports the error in a place where it didn't even occur) leaves you in a state of MURDEROUS RAMPAGE should anything go wrong in your precious RoR app.</p><p>As for Ruby in a browser - there's already projects that do that, and do it fairly well. Some of them use Applets, which is where suddenly everyone has a hissie fit. Yeah, using a proprietary Windows-centric tech like Silverlight is a MUUUUCH better option. Please. Or writing a VM in JavaScript? Talk about MOLASSES!</p><p>No thank you. If I want to use a quick scripting language with ample flexibility and power, I'll use Groovy, thank you very much. For one thing, Groovy and Grails gives me a LOT more choice as flexibility over RoR any day of the week.</p><p>So, Rubyists, have your little childish flames now. I've used it in 3 major projects, right up to Rails 2.3.2, and I've hated it every single time. And don't assume I'm a "n00b" - I've got over 15 years IT experience in more languages that I can list in this comment block.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who outside of the Ruby and Rails communities honestly gives a crap about the " Ruby Renaissance " ?
I 've worked with Ruby for over a year and a half , and I can say with absolute confidence that the language is horrible .
You can flame back to this all you want , the fact remains that it 's a slow blob and throwing more hardware at it is a stupid argument .
No major VM is going to make it rival the top languages in raw processing power ( C/C + + /Java even Python ) .
And Rails " automagic " combined with Ruby 's inability to report exceptions in a meaninful way ( the backtrace is 99 \ % rubbish , and often reports the error in a place where it did n't even occur ) leaves you in a state of MURDEROUS RAMPAGE should anything go wrong in your precious RoR app.As for Ruby in a browser - there 's already projects that do that , and do it fairly well .
Some of them use Applets , which is where suddenly everyone has a hissie fit .
Yeah , using a proprietary Windows-centric tech like Silverlight is a MUUUUCH better option .
Please. Or writing a VM in JavaScript ?
Talk about MOLASSES ! No thank you .
If I want to use a quick scripting language with ample flexibility and power , I 'll use Groovy , thank you very much .
For one thing , Groovy and Grails gives me a LOT more choice as flexibility over RoR any day of the week.So , Rubyists , have your little childish flames now .
I 've used it in 3 major projects , right up to Rails 2.3.2 , and I 've hated it every single time .
And do n't assume I 'm a " n00b " - I 've got over 15 years IT experience in more languages that I can list in this comment block .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who outside of the Ruby and Rails communities honestly gives a crap about the "Ruby Renaissance"?
I've worked with Ruby for over a year and a half, and I can say with absolute confidence that the language is horrible.
You can flame back to this all you want, the fact remains that it's a slow blob and throwing more hardware at it is a stupid argument.
No major VM is going to make it rival the top languages in raw processing power (C/C++/Java even Python).
And Rails "automagic" combined with Ruby's inability to report exceptions in a meaninful way (the backtrace is 99\% rubbish, and often reports the error in a place where it didn't even occur) leaves you in a state of MURDEROUS RAMPAGE should anything go wrong in your precious RoR app.As for Ruby in a browser - there's already projects that do that, and do it fairly well.
Some of them use Applets, which is where suddenly everyone has a hissie fit.
Yeah, using a proprietary Windows-centric tech like Silverlight is a MUUUUCH better option.
Please. Or writing a VM in JavaScript?
Talk about MOLASSES!No thank you.
If I want to use a quick scripting language with ample flexibility and power, I'll use Groovy, thank you very much.
For one thing, Groovy and Grails gives me a LOT more choice as flexibility over RoR any day of the week.So, Rubyists, have your little childish flames now.
I've used it in 3 major projects, right up to Rails 2.3.2, and I've hated it every single time.
And don't assume I'm a "n00b" - I've got over 15 years IT experience in more languages that I can list in this comment block.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195282</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258919580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no idea what you're talking about. 'nuff said</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no idea what you 're talking about .
'nuff said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no idea what you're talking about.
'nuff said</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30196582</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258886940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Web development is repetitive because you have to learn to do the same few things in every layer of the stack.  If there weren't so many standards, most web development tasks could be automated away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Web development is repetitive because you have to learn to do the same few things in every layer of the stack .
If there were n't so many standards , most web development tasks could be automated away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web development is repetitive because you have to learn to do the same few things in every layer of the stack.
If there weren't so many standards, most web development tasks could be automated away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194102</id>
	<title>Good News</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1258910880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad to see so much work is being done on Ruby, and especially that people are working on compiling Ruby to native code. Ruby is a great language, but there is no denying that the old implementation (MRI 1.8 and before) is dog slow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad to see so much work is being done on Ruby , and especially that people are working on compiling Ruby to native code .
Ruby is a great language , but there is no denying that the old implementation ( MRI 1.8 and before ) is dog slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad to see so much work is being done on Ruby, and especially that people are working on compiling Ruby to native code.
Ruby is a great language, but there is no denying that the old implementation (MRI 1.8 and before) is dog slow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197188</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258890900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I programmed in both Python and Ruby for more than a year each. I stopped Ruby when I realized that Zed Shaw was right, the community had become a bunch of D*cks - and the languages' memory use and speed was scr*wed as well.</p><p>As a language, though, I think Ruby itself is still a thing of beauty. I don't expect to return to it but I still love it.</p><p>Python's meaningful white space is feature something that can feel nice but which I think ultimately makes it *completely* unacceptable as a serious development language - it indeed looks clean and nice yet the fact that you can have invisible bugs that are removed only by rewriting the code as you see it is just a nightmare. It's like a cancer or poison or something else equally nasty. And yes, there are lots of tools out there to deal with this BUT it is inevitable that your code will find itself onto a machine that doesn't have to those tools. And then you are screwed in a distinctly awful fashion. I've debugged lots of nasty things but "looking" for tabs instead of spaces in code in a random server w/ vi is not acceptable.</p><p>Also, the meaningful newline/white space makes embedding in HTML more kludgy, though that's a smaller problem.</p><p>And python's pretty slow as well.</p><p>The thing that I thing that I like about Ruby is how it incorporates all the messy Perlisms in the least messy, most coherent and logical fashion possible.</p><p>Ruby's metaprogramming is actually behind Python and these new VMs might change that. Still, the many VMs are sadly a statement that Ruby is done, not that Ruby is beginning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I programmed in both Python and Ruby for more than a year each .
I stopped Ruby when I realized that Zed Shaw was right , the community had become a bunch of D * cks - and the languages ' memory use and speed was scr * wed as well.As a language , though , I think Ruby itself is still a thing of beauty .
I do n't expect to return to it but I still love it.Python 's meaningful white space is feature something that can feel nice but which I think ultimately makes it * completely * unacceptable as a serious development language - it indeed looks clean and nice yet the fact that you can have invisible bugs that are removed only by rewriting the code as you see it is just a nightmare .
It 's like a cancer or poison or something else equally nasty .
And yes , there are lots of tools out there to deal with this BUT it is inevitable that your code will find itself onto a machine that does n't have to those tools .
And then you are screwed in a distinctly awful fashion .
I 've debugged lots of nasty things but " looking " for tabs instead of spaces in code in a random server w/ vi is not acceptable.Also , the meaningful newline/white space makes embedding in HTML more kludgy , though that 's a smaller problem.And python 's pretty slow as well.The thing that I thing that I like about Ruby is how it incorporates all the messy Perlisms in the least messy , most coherent and logical fashion possible.Ruby 's metaprogramming is actually behind Python and these new VMs might change that .
Still , the many VMs are sadly a statement that Ruby is done , not that Ruby is beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I programmed in both Python and Ruby for more than a year each.
I stopped Ruby when I realized that Zed Shaw was right, the community had become a bunch of D*cks - and the languages' memory use and speed was scr*wed as well.As a language, though, I think Ruby itself is still a thing of beauty.
I don't expect to return to it but I still love it.Python's meaningful white space is feature something that can feel nice but which I think ultimately makes it *completely* unacceptable as a serious development language - it indeed looks clean and nice yet the fact that you can have invisible bugs that are removed only by rewriting the code as you see it is just a nightmare.
It's like a cancer or poison or something else equally nasty.
And yes, there are lots of tools out there to deal with this BUT it is inevitable that your code will find itself onto a machine that doesn't have to those tools.
And then you are screwed in a distinctly awful fashion.
I've debugged lots of nasty things but "looking" for tabs instead of spaces in code in a random server w/ vi is not acceptable.Also, the meaningful newline/white space makes embedding in HTML more kludgy, though that's a smaller problem.And python's pretty slow as well.The thing that I thing that I like about Ruby is how it incorporates all the messy Perlisms in the least messy, most coherent and logical fashion possible.Ruby's metaprogramming is actually behind Python and these new VMs might change that.
Still, the many VMs are sadly a statement that Ruby is done, not that Ruby is beginning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194110</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1258910940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What are the pluses/minuses of Ruby compared to Python?</p></div><p>Short version : Same Same but different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the pluses/minuses of Ruby compared to Python ? Short version : Same Same but different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the pluses/minuses of Ruby compared to Python?Short version : Same Same but different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30223042</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259086980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's hotruby, a javascript/flash hybrid implementation of ruby: <a href="http://hotruby.yukoba.jp/" title="yukoba.jp" rel="nofollow">http://hotruby.yukoba.jp/</a> [yukoba.jp]</p><p>and you can of course run jruby as a java applet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's hotruby , a javascript/flash hybrid implementation of ruby : http : //hotruby.yukoba.jp/ [ yukoba.jp ] and you can of course run jruby as a java applet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's hotruby, a javascript/flash hybrid implementation of ruby: http://hotruby.yukoba.jp/ [yukoba.jp]and you can of course run jruby as a java applet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193990</id>
	<title>Renaissance?</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1258910160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did the ancient Greeks and Romans have Ruby VMs that are just now bursting back onto the cultural scene?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the ancient Greeks and Romans have Ruby VMs that are just now bursting back onto the cultural scene ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the ancient Greeks and Romans have Ruby VMs that are just now bursting back onto the cultural scene?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908</id>
	<title>Ruby  Javascript</title>
	<author>Djupblue</author>
	<datestamp>1258909560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be so nice to be able to use Ruby instead of Javascript.<br>It is so much easier to write clean code in Ruby and since I use a lot of Ruby on Rails it would be great to be able to use the same code in the backend and in the browser. Go Ruby!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be so nice to be able to use Ruby instead of Javascript.It is so much easier to write clean code in Ruby and since I use a lot of Ruby on Rails it would be great to be able to use the same code in the backend and in the browser .
Go Ruby !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be so nice to be able to use Ruby instead of Javascript.It is so much easier to write clean code in Ruby and since I use a lot of Ruby on Rails it would be great to be able to use the same code in the backend and in the browser.
Go Ruby!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195806</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>mythz</author>
	<datestamp>1258880640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like the start of a Ruby fanboi crowd right here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>Javascript is a powerful functional protyped-based language that is just as powerful as any other dynamic language. Libraries like jQuery show just how powerful and expressive the language can be while applications like google maps, gmail, etc show how capable the language is.</p><p>It gets most of its negative sentiment from devs who don't understand it fully to appreciate its strengths. I would suggest using the resources on <a href="http://www.crockford.com/javascript/" title="crockford.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.crockford.com/javascript/</a> [crockford.com] to learn some advanced techniques.</p><p>For anyone who's interested I have a Class.js as described on my blog <a href="http://www.servicestack.net/mythz\_blog/?p=3" title="servicestack.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.servicestack.net/mythz\_blog/?p=3</a> [servicestack.net] that simplifies using OOP in Javascript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the start of a Ruby fanboi crowd right here on /.Javascript is a powerful functional protyped-based language that is just as powerful as any other dynamic language .
Libraries like jQuery show just how powerful and expressive the language can be while applications like google maps , gmail , etc show how capable the language is.It gets most of its negative sentiment from devs who do n't understand it fully to appreciate its strengths .
I would suggest using the resources on http : //www.crockford.com/javascript/ [ crockford.com ] to learn some advanced techniques.For anyone who 's interested I have a Class.js as described on my blog http : //www.servicestack.net/mythz \ _blog/ ? p = 3 [ servicestack.net ] that simplifies using OOP in Javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the start of a Ruby fanboi crowd right here on /.Javascript is a powerful functional protyped-based language that is just as powerful as any other dynamic language.
Libraries like jQuery show just how powerful and expressive the language can be while applications like google maps, gmail, etc show how capable the language is.It gets most of its negative sentiment from devs who don't understand it fully to appreciate its strengths.
I would suggest using the resources on http://www.crockford.com/javascript/ [crockford.com] to learn some advanced techniques.For anyone who's interested I have a Class.js as described on my blog http://www.servicestack.net/mythz\_blog/?p=3 [servicestack.net] that simplifies using OOP in Javascript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197008</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258889640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ruby seems to passe now. It really brings nothing to the table between Perl or Python.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ruby seems to passe now .
It really brings nothing to the table between Perl or Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ruby seems to passe now.
It really brings nothing to the table between Perl or Python.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197152</id>
	<title>Re:Benchmarks or it didn't happen.</title>
	<author>Axello</author>
	<datestamp>1258890660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice and eloquent reply,  thank you.
I'll look at RoR again after messing about with Capistrano years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice and eloquent reply , thank you .
I 'll look at RoR again after messing about with Capistrano years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice and eloquent reply,  thank you.
I'll look at RoR again after messing about with Capistrano years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30196402</id>
	<title>Dynamic languages renaissance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258885260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an exciting time not only for Ruby, but for other dynamic languages as well, especially javascript and python.<br>For example python has a number of different implementations on the works that are starting to show good results in performance improvements.<br>Pypy (python in python) is already able to generate very fast numerical code, its JIT is making progress at good pace since the last months, and a new release is expected for the end of January.<br>Unladen Swallow is a Google sponsored project which aims to speed up the current cpython implementation, by implementing a jit with llvm, amongst other modifications. Their goal is to speed up current applications used by google in a relatively short time (they don't want to mantain a python implementation forever, this is an incremental improvement of cpython), and they concentrate in web applications that use c extensions.<br>Psyco, which is an extension module which speeds up python by a large margin and has been around for some years, has been revamped to version 2 and shows significant improvements as well.<br>We can also mention Ironpython, the implementation of python in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET which opened the door to IronRuby.<br>And there are many other minor efforts and one-guy projects that may give us surprises in the near future. For example CrossTwine linker (for python and ruby), Hotpython ( a new virtual machine built from the ground up to be fast), etc, etc...</p><p>As for javascript, those who thought it would be a dead language by now were plainly wrong. Google's V8 is a success and runs code at holy crap speed. Safari's Nitro followed suite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an exciting time not only for Ruby , but for other dynamic languages as well , especially javascript and python.For example python has a number of different implementations on the works that are starting to show good results in performance improvements.Pypy ( python in python ) is already able to generate very fast numerical code , its JIT is making progress at good pace since the last months , and a new release is expected for the end of January.Unladen Swallow is a Google sponsored project which aims to speed up the current cpython implementation , by implementing a jit with llvm , amongst other modifications .
Their goal is to speed up current applications used by google in a relatively short time ( they do n't want to mantain a python implementation forever , this is an incremental improvement of cpython ) , and they concentrate in web applications that use c extensions.Psyco , which is an extension module which speeds up python by a large margin and has been around for some years , has been revamped to version 2 and shows significant improvements as well.We can also mention Ironpython , the implementation of python in .NET which opened the door to IronRuby.And there are many other minor efforts and one-guy projects that may give us surprises in the near future .
For example CrossTwine linker ( for python and ruby ) , Hotpython ( a new virtual machine built from the ground up to be fast ) , etc , etc...As for javascript , those who thought it would be a dead language by now were plainly wrong .
Google 's V8 is a success and runs code at holy crap speed .
Safari 's Nitro followed suite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an exciting time not only for Ruby, but for other dynamic languages as well, especially javascript and python.For example python has a number of different implementations on the works that are starting to show good results in performance improvements.Pypy (python in python) is already able to generate very fast numerical code, its JIT is making progress at good pace since the last months, and a new release is expected for the end of January.Unladen Swallow is a Google sponsored project which aims to speed up the current cpython implementation, by implementing a jit with llvm, amongst other modifications.
Their goal is to speed up current applications used by google in a relatively short time (they don't want to mantain a python implementation forever, this is an incremental improvement of cpython), and they concentrate in web applications that use c extensions.Psyco, which is an extension module which speeds up python by a large margin and has been around for some years, has been revamped to version 2 and shows significant improvements as well.We can also mention Ironpython, the implementation of python in .NET which opened the door to IronRuby.And there are many other minor efforts and one-guy projects that may give us surprises in the near future.
For example CrossTwine linker (for python and ruby), Hotpython ( a new virtual machine built from the ground up to be fast), etc, etc...As for javascript, those who thought it would be a dead language by now were plainly wrong.
Google's V8 is a success and runs code at holy crap speed.
Safari's Nitro followed suite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30244060</id>
	<title>Scala</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259319300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scala! There I said it, someone just had to</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scala !
There I said it , someone just had to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scala!
There I said it, someone just had to</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194154</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258911240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but bit problematic when trying for tighter design with bigger scopes.</p></div><p>Very true and probably this is the scenarios where a compiled (statically checked language) would have an edge if<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it wouldn't take eons to develop anything.<br>At prototyping stage is faster using a scripting language (my favourite being python): once the general design (and the business requirement have been<br>better defined) a rewrite in java/C# might be beneficial (I haven't still seen the case tough).<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but bit problematic when trying for tighter design with bigger scopes.Very true and probably this is the scenarios where a compiled ( statically checked language ) would have an edge if ... it would n't take eons to develop anything.At prototyping stage is faster using a scripting language ( my favourite being python ) : once the general design ( and the business requirement have beenbetter defined ) a rewrite in java/C # might be beneficial ( I have n't still seen the case tough ) .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... but bit problematic when trying for tighter design with bigger scopes.Very true and probably this is the scenarios where a compiled (statically checked language) would have an edge if ... it wouldn't take eons to develop anything.At prototyping stage is faster using a scripting language (my favourite being python): once the general design (and the business requirement have beenbetter defined) a rewrite in java/C# might be beneficial (I haven't still seen the case tough).
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30198728</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258904880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Pervasively object oriented" is an advantage of Ruby? I guess that depends on what you think of OO<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pervasively object oriented " is an advantage of Ruby ?
I guess that depends on what you think of OO .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pervasively object oriented" is an advantage of Ruby?
I guess that depends on what you think of OO ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194130</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1258911060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google web toolkit allows devs to write in Java which is translated into JS. I'm sure something similar is feasible for Ruby too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google web toolkit allows devs to write in Java which is translated into JS .
I 'm sure something similar is feasible for Ruby too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google web toolkit allows devs to write in Java which is translated into JS.
I'm sure something similar is feasible for Ruby too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30196482</id>
	<title>What do you mean by clean?</title>
	<author>namespan</author>
	<datestamp>1258886280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It is so much easier to write clean code in Ruby</i></p><p>How come? What do you mean by clean?</p><p>I know Javascript a lot better than I know Ruby, but I've got at least some mild experience with the latter, and so far, I don't see any particular feature of the language that suggests to me that Ruby's on a higher plane.  Perhaps you could point out some?</p><p><i>it would be great to be able to use the same code in the backend and in the browser.</i></p><p>It would, which is one reason why it's exciting to see Javascript gaining traction on the backend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is so much easier to write clean code in RubyHow come ?
What do you mean by clean ? I know Javascript a lot better than I know Ruby , but I 've got at least some mild experience with the latter , and so far , I do n't see any particular feature of the language that suggests to me that Ruby 's on a higher plane .
Perhaps you could point out some ? it would be great to be able to use the same code in the backend and in the browser.It would , which is one reason why it 's exciting to see Javascript gaining traction on the backend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is so much easier to write clean code in RubyHow come?
What do you mean by clean?I know Javascript a lot better than I know Ruby, but I've got at least some mild experience with the latter, and so far, I don't see any particular feature of the language that suggests to me that Ruby's on a higher plane.
Perhaps you could point out some?it would be great to be able to use the same code in the backend and in the browser.It would, which is one reason why it's exciting to see Javascript gaining traction on the backend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194448</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258913160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``I've gotten to use Python in the last couple of years - it's concise, expressive, whole lot less verbose (compared to Java, C)''</p><p>On those issues, Ruby isn't very different. In fact, I think the reason there are so many heated debates about which of Ruby and Python is better is exactly because, all things said and done, the differences don't matter that much and your preference is largely a matter of taste.</p><p>``but bit problematic when trying for tighter design with bigger scopes.''</p><p>Ruby borrows features from other great languages like Lisp and Smalltalk, which allow it to more naturally express paradigms other than imperative, and classes-and-methods. On the other hand, there is something to be said for Python's "one way to do it", as well.</p><p>Comparing Ruby and Python, I find that Python programs tend to have cleaner syntax (fewer hieroglyphs in the code) whereas Ruby programs tend to have cleaner structure (program more closely expresses what is being done because the language is multi-paradigm).</p><p>For programming in the large, both languages have about the same advantages and disadvantages: you have metaprogramming, which is a big plus, but no static checking, which is a minus. Personally, I feel like metaprogramming is an integral part of Ruby programming, whereas, in Python, it runs contrary to the spirit of "one way to do it", but Python does support metaprogramming and plenty of people are putting it to good use.</p><p>``What are the pluses/minuses of Ruby compared to Python? Has it dumped all its Perlism now? (I looked at Ruby briefly years back).''</p><p>Ruby definitely hasn't dumped its Perlisms. That's both a blessing and a curse: on the one hand, it allows for ugly programs, on the other hand, sometimes it's useful to say in a few hieroglyphs what would otherwise require lots of boilerplate code. Again, taste plays a role, but I must note that many languages that forgo Perlisms usually end up adopting regular expressions anyway, only with less power and more leaning toothpick syndrome. Given the choice, I'd rather have first-class regular expressions like Perl, even though they are the worst offenders in making Perl code look like line noise.</p><p>Basically, if you like Python for its purity, you'll probably detest Ruby. It's messy. But if you like Python for its expressive power, you may like Ruby because it offers you more of that. If you like Python but want static typing, don't bother with Ruby, because it won't give you that. You might be better off trying OCaml, Haskell, or Common Lisp (with appropriate compiler) in that case. If you're looking for speed, those are better options, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` I 've gotten to use Python in the last couple of years - it 's concise , expressive , whole lot less verbose ( compared to Java , C ) ''On those issues , Ruby is n't very different .
In fact , I think the reason there are so many heated debates about which of Ruby and Python is better is exactly because , all things said and done , the differences do n't matter that much and your preference is largely a matter of taste. ` ` but bit problematic when trying for tighter design with bigger scopes .
''Ruby borrows features from other great languages like Lisp and Smalltalk , which allow it to more naturally express paradigms other than imperative , and classes-and-methods .
On the other hand , there is something to be said for Python 's " one way to do it " , as well.Comparing Ruby and Python , I find that Python programs tend to have cleaner syntax ( fewer hieroglyphs in the code ) whereas Ruby programs tend to have cleaner structure ( program more closely expresses what is being done because the language is multi-paradigm ) .For programming in the large , both languages have about the same advantages and disadvantages : you have metaprogramming , which is a big plus , but no static checking , which is a minus .
Personally , I feel like metaprogramming is an integral part of Ruby programming , whereas , in Python , it runs contrary to the spirit of " one way to do it " , but Python does support metaprogramming and plenty of people are putting it to good use. ` ` What are the pluses/minuses of Ruby compared to Python ?
Has it dumped all its Perlism now ?
( I looked at Ruby briefly years back ) .
''Ruby definitely has n't dumped its Perlisms .
That 's both a blessing and a curse : on the one hand , it allows for ugly programs , on the other hand , sometimes it 's useful to say in a few hieroglyphs what would otherwise require lots of boilerplate code .
Again , taste plays a role , but I must note that many languages that forgo Perlisms usually end up adopting regular expressions anyway , only with less power and more leaning toothpick syndrome .
Given the choice , I 'd rather have first-class regular expressions like Perl , even though they are the worst offenders in making Perl code look like line noise.Basically , if you like Python for its purity , you 'll probably detest Ruby .
It 's messy .
But if you like Python for its expressive power , you may like Ruby because it offers you more of that .
If you like Python but want static typing , do n't bother with Ruby , because it wo n't give you that .
You might be better off trying OCaml , Haskell , or Common Lisp ( with appropriate compiler ) in that case .
If you 're looking for speed , those are better options , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``I've gotten to use Python in the last couple of years - it's concise, expressive, whole lot less verbose (compared to Java, C)''On those issues, Ruby isn't very different.
In fact, I think the reason there are so many heated debates about which of Ruby and Python is better is exactly because, all things said and done, the differences don't matter that much and your preference is largely a matter of taste.``but bit problematic when trying for tighter design with bigger scopes.
''Ruby borrows features from other great languages like Lisp and Smalltalk, which allow it to more naturally express paradigms other than imperative, and classes-and-methods.
On the other hand, there is something to be said for Python's "one way to do it", as well.Comparing Ruby and Python, I find that Python programs tend to have cleaner syntax (fewer hieroglyphs in the code) whereas Ruby programs tend to have cleaner structure (program more closely expresses what is being done because the language is multi-paradigm).For programming in the large, both languages have about the same advantages and disadvantages: you have metaprogramming, which is a big plus, but no static checking, which is a minus.
Personally, I feel like metaprogramming is an integral part of Ruby programming, whereas, in Python, it runs contrary to the spirit of "one way to do it", but Python does support metaprogramming and plenty of people are putting it to good use.``What are the pluses/minuses of Ruby compared to Python?
Has it dumped all its Perlism now?
(I looked at Ruby briefly years back).
''Ruby definitely hasn't dumped its Perlisms.
That's both a blessing and a curse: on the one hand, it allows for ugly programs, on the other hand, sometimes it's useful to say in a few hieroglyphs what would otherwise require lots of boilerplate code.
Again, taste plays a role, but I must note that many languages that forgo Perlisms usually end up adopting regular expressions anyway, only with less power and more leaning toothpick syndrome.
Given the choice, I'd rather have first-class regular expressions like Perl, even though they are the worst offenders in making Perl code look like line noise.Basically, if you like Python for its purity, you'll probably detest Ruby.
It's messy.
But if you like Python for its expressive power, you may like Ruby because it offers you more of that.
If you like Python but want static typing, don't bother with Ruby, because it won't give you that.
You might be better off trying OCaml, Haskell, or Common Lisp (with appropriate compiler) in that case.
If you're looking for speed, those are better options, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30200190</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258970280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have long said that Webbrowsers should be scripting language independent. They should be (like) plug-ins. With the same API exposed into it.</p><p>JS is actually pretty great, if you know how to use it. Which most that complain about it don&rsquo;s. Or how many of those actually do functional programming in it, or really understand prototype-based object orientation?</p><p>I am for adding Python, Ruby, Haskell, OCaml, Erlang, but NOT C/C++, Perl or Lua. Maybe Java. Big maybe. ^^<br>Then again, I am a friend of well-designed languages, and thereby have an obvious preference.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have long said that Webbrowsers should be scripting language independent .
They should be ( like ) plug-ins .
With the same API exposed into it.JS is actually pretty great , if you know how to use it .
Which most that complain about it don    s .
Or how many of those actually do functional programming in it , or really understand prototype-based object orientation ? I am for adding Python , Ruby , Haskell , OCaml , Erlang , but NOT C/C + + , Perl or Lua .
Maybe Java .
Big maybe .
^ ^ Then again , I am a friend of well-designed languages , and thereby have an obvious preference .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have long said that Webbrowsers should be scripting language independent.
They should be (like) plug-ins.
With the same API exposed into it.JS is actually pretty great, if you know how to use it.
Which most that complain about it don’s.
Or how many of those actually do functional programming in it, or really understand prototype-based object orientation?I am for adding Python, Ruby, Haskell, OCaml, Erlang, but NOT C/C++, Perl or Lua.
Maybe Java.
Big maybe.
^^Then again, I am a friend of well-designed languages, and thereby have an obvious preference.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194284</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1258912200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Web 2.0 is still gay.</p></div><p>To quote Mel Brooks' *The Producers*:</p><blockquote><div><p>If at the end you want them to cheer<br>Keep it gay, keep it gay, keep it gay!</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web 2.0 is still gay.To quote Mel Brooks ' * The Producers * : If at the end you want them to cheerKeep it gay , keep it gay , keep it gay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web 2.0 is still gay.To quote Mel Brooks' *The Producers*:If at the end you want them to cheerKeep it gay, keep it gay, keep it gay!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195268</id>
	<title>Benchmarks or it didn't happen.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258919520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've worked with Ruby for over a year and a half, and I can say with absolute confidence that the language is horrible. You can flame back to this all you want...</p></div><p>That might be an interesting discussion, actually, but:</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the fact remains that it's a slow blob and throwing more hardware at it is a stupid argument.</p></div><p>See, that's a property of the implementation, not the language. You <i>have</i> noticed what's happened to Javascript lately, right? It used to be slower than Ruby. With v8, it's faster than Python.</p><p>Also, you fail to address why throwing hardware at it is a stupid argument, and you don't provide any benchmarks that it's slow.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No major VM is going to make it rival the top languages in raw processing power (C/C++/Java even Python).</p></div><p>If you actually looked at benchmarks, you'd notice that if nothing else, Rails beats PHP, consistently, for performance.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And Rails "automagic" combined with Ruby's inability to report exceptions in a meaninful way (the backtrace is 99\% rubbish, and often reports the error in a place where it didn't even occur)</p></div><p>It would help if you actually gave an example here, but you don't. In my experience, the backtrace is actually quite helpful, but use of unit tests and specs helps avoid it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As for Ruby in a browser - there's already projects that do that, and do it fairly well.</p></div><p>Which is one of the things TFA is about. So what's your point?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some of them use Applets, which is where suddenly everyone has a hissie fit. Yeah, using a proprietary Windows-centric tech like Silverlight is a MUUUUCH better option.</p></div><p>I suspect Silverlight is at least faster to load, but I haven't tried doing either. Javascript does what I want it to do well enough.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Or writing a VM in JavaScript? Talk about MOLASSES!</p></div><p>Again, benchmarks or it didn't happen. Make sure to test it in one of the better Javascript engines, like v8.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If I want to use a quick scripting language with ample flexibility and power, I'll use Groovy, thank you very much. For one thing, Groovy and Grails gives me a LOT more choice as flexibility over RoR any day of the week.</p></div><p>Can you give an example of how? I mean, for one, there only really seems to be Grails, whereas Ruby has more web frameworks than VMs, and that's saying something. Take Sinatra, for example:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>get '/' do<br>
&nbsp; 'Hello, world!'<br>end</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>That's right, a REST DSL. What has Groovy got, again?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So, Rubyists, have your little childish flames now.</p></div><p>That's the most literal example of flamebait I've ever seen. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like anyone's really flaming you back. I'm the closest, and I'm just asking for facts.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And don't assume I'm a "n00b" - I've got over 15 years IT experience in more languages that I can list in this comment block.</p></div><p>With all that experience, you couldn't figure out that the comment block seems to allow very, very long comments -- almost certainly longer than the total list of programming languages that exist?</p><p>More importantly, you seem to have fallen into the same trap that <a href="http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=127" title="centos.org">Jerry Taylor</a> [centos.org] did. I have no idea what your experience is, but it certainly doesn't seem to be reflected here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've worked with Ruby for over a year and a half , and I can say with absolute confidence that the language is horrible .
You can flame back to this all you want...That might be an interesting discussion , actually , but : ...the fact remains that it 's a slow blob and throwing more hardware at it is a stupid argument.See , that 's a property of the implementation , not the language .
You have noticed what 's happened to Javascript lately , right ?
It used to be slower than Ruby .
With v8 , it 's faster than Python.Also , you fail to address why throwing hardware at it is a stupid argument , and you do n't provide any benchmarks that it 's slow.No major VM is going to make it rival the top languages in raw processing power ( C/C + + /Java even Python ) .If you actually looked at benchmarks , you 'd notice that if nothing else , Rails beats PHP , consistently , for performance.And Rails " automagic " combined with Ruby 's inability to report exceptions in a meaninful way ( the backtrace is 99 \ % rubbish , and often reports the error in a place where it did n't even occur ) It would help if you actually gave an example here , but you do n't .
In my experience , the backtrace is actually quite helpful , but use of unit tests and specs helps avoid it.As for Ruby in a browser - there 's already projects that do that , and do it fairly well.Which is one of the things TFA is about .
So what 's your point ? Some of them use Applets , which is where suddenly everyone has a hissie fit .
Yeah , using a proprietary Windows-centric tech like Silverlight is a MUUUUCH better option.I suspect Silverlight is at least faster to load , but I have n't tried doing either .
Javascript does what I want it to do well enough.Or writing a VM in JavaScript ?
Talk about MOLASSES ! Again , benchmarks or it did n't happen .
Make sure to test it in one of the better Javascript engines , like v8.If I want to use a quick scripting language with ample flexibility and power , I 'll use Groovy , thank you very much .
For one thing , Groovy and Grails gives me a LOT more choice as flexibility over RoR any day of the week.Can you give an example of how ?
I mean , for one , there only really seems to be Grails , whereas Ruby has more web frameworks than VMs , and that 's saying something .
Take Sinatra , for example : get '/ ' do   'Hello , world !
'end That 's right , a REST DSL .
What has Groovy got , again ? So , Rubyists , have your little childish flames now.That 's the most literal example of flamebait I 've ever seen .
Unfortunately , it does n't look like anyone 's really flaming you back .
I 'm the closest , and I 'm just asking for facts.And do n't assume I 'm a " n00b " - I 've got over 15 years IT experience in more languages that I can list in this comment block.With all that experience , you could n't figure out that the comment block seems to allow very , very long comments -- almost certainly longer than the total list of programming languages that exist ? More importantly , you seem to have fallen into the same trap that Jerry Taylor [ centos.org ] did .
I have no idea what your experience is , but it certainly does n't seem to be reflected here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've worked with Ruby for over a year and a half, and I can say with absolute confidence that the language is horrible.
You can flame back to this all you want...That might be an interesting discussion, actually, but: ...the fact remains that it's a slow blob and throwing more hardware at it is a stupid argument.See, that's a property of the implementation, not the language.
You have noticed what's happened to Javascript lately, right?
It used to be slower than Ruby.
With v8, it's faster than Python.Also, you fail to address why throwing hardware at it is a stupid argument, and you don't provide any benchmarks that it's slow.No major VM is going to make it rival the top languages in raw processing power (C/C++/Java even Python).If you actually looked at benchmarks, you'd notice that if nothing else, Rails beats PHP, consistently, for performance.And Rails "automagic" combined with Ruby's inability to report exceptions in a meaninful way (the backtrace is 99\% rubbish, and often reports the error in a place where it didn't even occur)It would help if you actually gave an example here, but you don't.
In my experience, the backtrace is actually quite helpful, but use of unit tests and specs helps avoid it.As for Ruby in a browser - there's already projects that do that, and do it fairly well.Which is one of the things TFA is about.
So what's your point?Some of them use Applets, which is where suddenly everyone has a hissie fit.
Yeah, using a proprietary Windows-centric tech like Silverlight is a MUUUUCH better option.I suspect Silverlight is at least faster to load, but I haven't tried doing either.
Javascript does what I want it to do well enough.Or writing a VM in JavaScript?
Talk about MOLASSES!Again, benchmarks or it didn't happen.
Make sure to test it in one of the better Javascript engines, like v8.If I want to use a quick scripting language with ample flexibility and power, I'll use Groovy, thank you very much.
For one thing, Groovy and Grails gives me a LOT more choice as flexibility over RoR any day of the week.Can you give an example of how?
I mean, for one, there only really seems to be Grails, whereas Ruby has more web frameworks than VMs, and that's saying something.
Take Sinatra, for example: get '/' do
  'Hello, world!
'end That's right, a REST DSL.
What has Groovy got, again?So, Rubyists, have your little childish flames now.That's the most literal example of flamebait I've ever seen.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like anyone's really flaming you back.
I'm the closest, and I'm just asking for facts.And don't assume I'm a "n00b" - I've got over 15 years IT experience in more languages that I can list in this comment block.With all that experience, you couldn't figure out that the comment block seems to allow very, very long comments -- almost certainly longer than the total list of programming languages that exist?More importantly, you seem to have fallen into the same trap that Jerry Taylor [centos.org] did.
I have no idea what your experience is, but it certainly doesn't seem to be reflected here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30203706</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1259000940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have long said that Webbrowsers should be scripting language independent. They should be (like) plug-ins. With the same API exposed into it.</p></div><p>Yeah! And we could call it... Windows Scripting Host! And third-party languages like ActivePython would work like a charm in the browsers! At least as long as it is Internet Explorer...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have long said that Webbrowsers should be scripting language independent .
They should be ( like ) plug-ins .
With the same API exposed into it.Yeah !
And we could call it... Windows Scripting Host !
And third-party languages like ActivePython would work like a charm in the browsers !
At least as long as it is Internet Explorer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have long said that Webbrowsers should be scripting language independent.
They should be (like) plug-ins.
With the same API exposed into it.Yeah!
And we could call it... Windows Scripting Host!
And third-party languages like ActivePython would work like a charm in the browsers!
At least as long as it is Internet Explorer...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30200190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194662</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258914600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So would you say Python is awesome? LOL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So would you say Python is awesome ?
LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So would you say Python is awesome?
LOL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30205152</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1259009220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Pervasively object-oriented, with anonymous classes, metaclasses and proper private methods. However, if your keyboard doesn't have a period, you could be convinced it pervasively functional, since it has 1st-class blocks, closures and continuations.</p></div></blockquote><p>Continuations have been removed from the core of Ruby, though they remain a <i>library</i> feature available with the main Ruby 1.9 implementation. They were removed for a number of reasons -- one is that no one was using them directly in production code (in part, that was a result of the fact that the pre-1.9 implementation was horrendously inefficient and produced memory leaks), and other features that they were in theory useful for (and the one thing in the standard library that leveraged them) were replaced with a more limited, tightly focussed coroutine feature (Fibers).</p><p>With the cleaned-up continuation implementation in 1.9, if enough of the alternative interpreters do implement them as well (I think its on the plans for some, though not JRuby, the main alternative) and they get much use, I can see them working back into the language core.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pervasively object-oriented , with anonymous classes , metaclasses and proper private methods .
However , if your keyboard does n't have a period , you could be convinced it pervasively functional , since it has 1st-class blocks , closures and continuations.Continuations have been removed from the core of Ruby , though they remain a library feature available with the main Ruby 1.9 implementation .
They were removed for a number of reasons -- one is that no one was using them directly in production code ( in part , that was a result of the fact that the pre-1.9 implementation was horrendously inefficient and produced memory leaks ) , and other features that they were in theory useful for ( and the one thing in the standard library that leveraged them ) were replaced with a more limited , tightly focussed coroutine feature ( Fibers ) .With the cleaned-up continuation implementation in 1.9 , if enough of the alternative interpreters do implement them as well ( I think its on the plans for some , though not JRuby , the main alternative ) and they get much use , I can see them working back into the language core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pervasively object-oriented, with anonymous classes, metaclasses and proper private methods.
However, if your keyboard doesn't have a period, you could be convinced it pervasively functional, since it has 1st-class blocks, closures and continuations.Continuations have been removed from the core of Ruby, though they remain a library feature available with the main Ruby 1.9 implementation.
They were removed for a number of reasons -- one is that no one was using them directly in production code (in part, that was a result of the fact that the pre-1.9 implementation was horrendously inefficient and produced memory leaks), and other features that they were in theory useful for (and the one thing in the standard library that leveraged them) were replaced with a more limited, tightly focussed coroutine feature (Fibers).With the cleaned-up continuation implementation in 1.9, if enough of the alternative interpreters do implement them as well (I think its on the plans for some, though not JRuby, the main alternative) and they get much use, I can see them working back into the language core.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195486</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258921380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take your significant whitespace piece of crap toylanguage and get the fuck out of here. If you still believe significant whitespace was a brilliant idea look at the steaming pile of number two that is PSP.</p><p>Dumbass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take your significant whitespace piece of crap toylanguage and get the fuck out of here .
If you still believe significant whitespace was a brilliant idea look at the steaming pile of number two that is PSP.Dumbass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take your significant whitespace piece of crap toylanguage and get the fuck out of here.
If you still believe significant whitespace was a brilliant idea look at the steaming pile of number two that is PSP.Dumbass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193860</id>
	<title>Yawn.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Web 2.0 is still gay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Web 2.0 is still gay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web 2.0 is still gay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197300</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1258891920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It would be so nice to be able to use Ruby instead of Javascript</p></div><p>The article had a couple links to
<a href="http://visitmix.com/labs/gestalt/" title="visitmix.com">Gestalt</a> [visitmix.com], which does just that (for both Ruby and Python), for browsers that have Silverlight or Moonlight installed.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be so nice to be able to use Ruby instead of JavascriptThe article had a couple links to Gestalt [ visitmix.com ] , which does just that ( for both Ruby and Python ) , for browsers that have Silverlight or Moonlight installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It would be so nice to be able to use Ruby instead of JavascriptThe article had a couple links to
Gestalt [visitmix.com], which does just that (for both Ruby and Python), for browsers that have Silverlight or Moonlight installed.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026</id>
	<title>Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258910340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I've gotten to use Python in the last couple of years - it's concise, expressive, whole lot less verbose (compared to Java, C) but bit problematic when trying for tighter design with bigger scopes.
</p><p>
What are the pluses/minuses of Ruby compared to Python?  Has it dumped all its Perlism now?  (I looked at Ruby briefly years back).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've gotten to use Python in the last couple of years - it 's concise , expressive , whole lot less verbose ( compared to Java , C ) but bit problematic when trying for tighter design with bigger scopes .
What are the pluses/minuses of Ruby compared to Python ?
Has it dumped all its Perlism now ?
( I looked at Ruby briefly years back ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I've gotten to use Python in the last couple of years - it's concise, expressive, whole lot less verbose (compared to Java, C) but bit problematic when trying for tighter design with bigger scopes.
What are the pluses/minuses of Ruby compared to Python?
Has it dumped all its Perlism now?
(I looked at Ruby briefly years back).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197888</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258897380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd be good if you'd actually been familiar with Python before comparing the two.</p><blockquote><div><p>Pervasively object-oriented</p></div></blockquote><p>Like Python.</p><blockquote><div><p>with anonymous classes</p></div></blockquote><p>This is convenient, but it's nothing more than a convenience, and not one you have to use often.</p><blockquote><div><p>metaclasses</p></div></blockquote><p>Like Python.</p><blockquote><div><p>and proper private methods.</p></div></blockquote><p>Many Python programmers would probably consider this a bug, not a feature.</p><blockquote><div><p>1st-class blocks</p></div></blockquote><p><i>Here</i>'s something that's an actual, genuine advantage, and that I wish Python had.</p><blockquote><div><p>closures</p></div></blockquote><p>Like Python.</p><blockquote><div><p>continuations</p></div></blockquote><p>This is another actual advantage, except one that's going to be used only rarely and has massive potential for making your code mostly impossible for humans to comprehend.</p><blockquote><div><p>A very loose syntax, with no syntactic whitespace.</p></div></blockquote><p>Again, a bug, not a feature.</p><blockquote><div><p>A lot of mindshare and goodwill, centering on the Ruby on Rails framework.</p></div></blockquote><p>Python has a lot of mindshare and goodwill too. Understandably, though, it is not centered on RoR.</p><blockquote><div><p>it has a big learning curve for Python people. It's very different.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it's very similar. The biggest differences are in syntax, not semantics.</p><p>tl;dr most of your 'advantages' are either in Python too or for most Python programmers not advantages at all, and Ruby is overall not nearly as different as you seem to believe it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be good if you 'd actually been familiar with Python before comparing the two.Pervasively object-orientedLike Python.with anonymous classesThis is convenient , but it 's nothing more than a convenience , and not one you have to use often.metaclassesLike Python.and proper private methods.Many Python programmers would probably consider this a bug , not a feature.1st-class blocksHere 's something that 's an actual , genuine advantage , and that I wish Python had.closuresLike Python.continuationsThis is another actual advantage , except one that 's going to be used only rarely and has massive potential for making your code mostly impossible for humans to comprehend.A very loose syntax , with no syntactic whitespace.Again , a bug , not a feature.A lot of mindshare and goodwill , centering on the Ruby on Rails framework.Python has a lot of mindshare and goodwill too .
Understandably , though , it is not centered on RoR.it has a big learning curve for Python people .
It 's very different.No , it 's very similar .
The biggest differences are in syntax , not semantics.tl ; dr most of your 'advantages ' are either in Python too or for most Python programmers not advantages at all , and Ruby is overall not nearly as different as you seem to believe it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be good if you'd actually been familiar with Python before comparing the two.Pervasively object-orientedLike Python.with anonymous classesThis is convenient, but it's nothing more than a convenience, and not one you have to use often.metaclassesLike Python.and proper private methods.Many Python programmers would probably consider this a bug, not a feature.1st-class blocksHere's something that's an actual, genuine advantage, and that I wish Python had.closuresLike Python.continuationsThis is another actual advantage, except one that's going to be used only rarely and has massive potential for making your code mostly impossible for humans to comprehend.A very loose syntax, with no syntactic whitespace.Again, a bug, not a feature.A lot of mindshare and goodwill, centering on the Ruby on Rails framework.Python has a lot of mindshare and goodwill too.
Understandably, though, it is not centered on RoR.it has a big learning curve for Python people.
It's very different.No, it's very similar.
The biggest differences are in syntax, not semantics.tl;dr most of your 'advantages' are either in Python too or for most Python programmers not advantages at all, and Ruby is overall not nearly as different as you seem to believe it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30196916</id>
	<title>no cardinal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258888920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happened to Cardinal?  The project that was aiming to have Ruby compile to Parrot bytecode and promised full Ruby  Perl 6 interoperability?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to Cardinal ?
The project that was aiming to have Ruby compile to Parrot bytecode and promised full Ruby Perl 6 interoperability ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to Cardinal?
The project that was aiming to have Ruby compile to Parrot bytecode and promised full Ruby  Perl 6 interoperability?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194580</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1258914000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>On Ruby's side:

<ul> <li>Pervasively object-oriented, with anonymous classes, metaclasses and proper private methods.  However, if your keyboard doesn't have a period, you could be convinced it pervasively functional, since it has 1st-class blocks, closures and continuations.</li>
<li>A very loose syntax, with no syntactic whitespace.</li>
<li>A lot of mindshare and goodwill, centering on the Ruby on Rails framework.</li>
</ul><p>
Negatives:
</p><ul> <li>Interpreter has been too damn slow for too long, but as you see here they're working on it.</li>
<li>it has a big learning curve for Python people.  It's very different.</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Ruby 's side : Pervasively object-oriented , with anonymous classes , metaclasses and proper private methods .
However , if your keyboard does n't have a period , you could be convinced it pervasively functional , since it has 1st-class blocks , closures and continuations .
A very loose syntax , with no syntactic whitespace .
A lot of mindshare and goodwill , centering on the Ruby on Rails framework .
Negatives : Interpreter has been too damn slow for too long , but as you see here they 're working on it .
it has a big learning curve for Python people .
It 's very different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Ruby's side:

 Pervasively object-oriented, with anonymous classes, metaclasses and proper private methods.
However, if your keyboard doesn't have a period, you could be convinced it pervasively functional, since it has 1st-class blocks, closures and continuations.
A very loose syntax, with no syntactic whitespace.
A lot of mindshare and goodwill, centering on the Ruby on Rails framework.
Negatives:
 Interpreter has been too damn slow for too long, but as you see here they're working on it.
it has a big learning curve for Python people.
It's very different.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194048</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258910460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I love ruby, I really don't get you. Javascript is awesome just the way it is. Nor do I have any desire for it to replace html as well. Web development gets so repetitive after a while, no wonder diversity is a breath of fresh air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I love ruby , I really do n't get you .
Javascript is awesome just the way it is .
Nor do I have any desire for it to replace html as well .
Web development gets so repetitive after a while , no wonder diversity is a breath of fresh air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I love ruby, I really don't get you.
Javascript is awesome just the way it is.
Nor do I have any desire for it to replace html as well.
Web development gets so repetitive after a while, no wonder diversity is a breath of fresh air.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194128</id>
	<title>Re:Ruby at a sight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258911060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It still has problems wrt performance and variable scoping is still brain-dead.  But at least its semantics and syntax suck.</p><p>So, it's a bit worse than python with a better designed object model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It still has problems wrt performance and variable scoping is still brain-dead .
But at least its semantics and syntax suck.So , it 's a bit worse than python with a better designed object model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still has problems wrt performance and variable scoping is still brain-dead.
But at least its semantics and syntax suck.So, it's a bit worse than python with a better designed object model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30198728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30223042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30196482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30200210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30196582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30203706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30200190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1423221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30205152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1423221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1423221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1423221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30193908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30196482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30223042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30196582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194172
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194662
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195282
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30200190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30203706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30195448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1423221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30196916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1423221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30200210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30197888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30205152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30198728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1423221.30194128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
