On Feb 27, 2007, at 9:14 AM, Allan Odgaard wrote:
Could you btw make a case for the new Ruby syntax? I never figured out what problem it was supposed to solve.
The default Ruby syntax doesn't scope enough stuff. There are very basic things that are completely missing like method calls, operators and lambda variables.
My Ruby Experimental adds these basic things and a few other niceties like leading space and core library method names and better punctuation support.
The advantage is partly for the ability to better theme Ruby files, which many people like myself are looking at all day every day. Looking at mostly white on black text all day is enough to make you go mad.
Another advantage is in using the Select Scope command to better and more quickly select the current relevant scope. When you don't know the language as well as you'd like, having the core library methods colored slightly differently can really help you to quickly notice any misspellings and such.
So, to sum up: finish scoping the basic syntax of the language different kinds of operators, methods, lambda variables, basic punctuation like the => thing, etc… core methods Improved text interaction with select scope improved readability with leading space scopes improved awesomeness with the minimization of unscoped generic text But, that's not really the point. The point is that a syntax should scope as much as possible, not as little as necessary. Then it's up to each person to choose how you use those scopes.
Just take a bit of a peek for yourselves internet people! Would you rather spend all day looking at this: http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne? id=404629435&context=photostream&size=o or this? http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne? id=404629540&context=photostream&size=o
(if you hate that theme, just pretend you love it instead)
thomas Aylott — subtleGradient — CrazyEgg — sixteenColors