Muby, or Ronad Apr 6 2006

Two interesting points of view on a debate between two technologies that I didn’t think could be so comparable - Monad (MSH), and Ruby. Ted Neward puts forward his case for using Monad, because of its scripting ability, and provides some interesting usage of the scripting syntax to back his views up. Glenn Vanderburg says he’s sticking with Ruby however, and goes on to explain why, cleverly writing the same script that Ted did using Monad, in Ruby - just 17 lines of code, instead of 37 using MSH. Both posts are worth a read, however my opinion? I think Ruby has my vote all the way - it’s cross-platform nature, and the fact that it is a dedicated scripting language (rather than a shell with a neat syntactical scripting language to back it up) are really winning points for me. After all, I’d be happy combining Ruby with Rails to write a fully-fledged web application - but besides utilities/maintenance scripts, I don’t give Bash a run out very often. In the same way, I think at first people may say “look at how cool Monad is, look at what it can do!” but in the long-run, it’s use will be relegated to command line oriented tasks, and the “real code” will be written with languages like Ruby. My $0.02 on an interesting topic of conversation.

UPDATE: it looks like the original script in Ted’s article actually originated from a post by Lee Holmes - and since the debate, he has re-written the script, matching the Ruby version almost line for line - I guess that blows the whole lines of code argument out of the water then. Really it just comes down to what you are trying to write - in this case there’s not a lot between the two, however in other projects there may be a clear advantage to using one or the other. I’m happy to have both at my disposal :-)

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

codingdotneteleldiablopersonalprogrammingrubytech