perspective on ruby

[robert]

Edward Elliott wrote:

> Alex Martelli wrote:
> 
>> While Mozart appears cool, I really think that a wider variety of
>> languages would help -- some machine code (possibly abstract a la
>> Mixal), C (a must, *SO* much is written in it!), at least one of C++, D,
>> or ObjectiveC, either Scheme or Lisp, either *ML or Haskell, either
>> Python or Ruby, and at least one "OOP-only" language such as Java, C#,
>> Eiffel, or Smalltalk.  
> 
> 
> Yeah I agree that more is better.  The problem is using a new language 
> every couple courses without bogging down in implementation details. 
> Personally I'd just say "Here's a book, learn it yourself".  It's what 
> they gotta do on the job anyway.

Yes - start them explore. I'd not want to be "teached" a specific 
_language_ in a course longer that one day. A language cannot be teached.
Who of the posters in this thread want themselves to be _teached_ more 
than one day on a language?

I've seen many graduates who "know" Java, C, this and that words and 
patterns, but hardly can write a loop and evolve things. Those, who can 
write loops are mostly self-educated and can do all things quickly in 
any language.

Isn't the fun, finding the right tools for certain purposes one-self?

The job of (CS) courses more to provide a map ( "what fun to explore 
yourself" ) and display extremes (ASM and Lisp) to prevent from 
identification ?

-robert