How many people here are using Ruby?...

[DougBTX]

Correction: everything except literal numbers are objects in JS. So there's no way to add 1.add(2) functionality to the language, except to do something like (new Number(1)).add(2).

EDIT: "var x = 1; alert(x.add(2));" also works

Can you do operator overloading in Javascript?

Another Ruby example:

class Putty
  attr_reader :weight

  def initialize(weight = 10)
    @weight = weight
  end

  def + (more_putty)
    Putty.new(@weight + more_putty.weight)
  end

end

first_blob = Putty.new  #=> @weight = 10
second_blob = Putty.new #=> @weight = 10

big_blob = first_blob + second_blob 

big_blob #=> @weight = 20

Sure you could use .add() to get the same effect, or you could use functions and an associative array instead if you like, all the same result.

Though a + b looks nicer than a.add(b) or add(a, b) or (add a b) imo

Douglas

[Maian]

Nope, no operator overloading in JS. Dunno about JS2, but I wouldn't expect it to be in there either since operator overloading is considered messy by many and "feature bloat" for the language (I disagree with this BTW).

Only numeric and string types support arithmetic operators (1 + 1 => 2; 'a' + 'b' => 'ab'), and the rest will try to autocast to either string or number ('today is ' + objDate).

Also, there's actually no add function for numbers. In fact, it's totally unnecessary since 1 + 2 works just as well. I just made that method up as an example, though the method could be dynamically added:

Number.prototype.add = function(x) {
  return this.valueOf() + x;
}

var x = 1;
x = x.add(2);

I was just pointing out that in JS, number literals (e.g. 1) aren't automatically converted to the Number object unless assigned to a variable, so 1.some_method() would never work.

[DougBTX]

Number.prototype.add = function(x) {
  return this.valueOf() + x;
}

var x = 1;
x = x.add(2);

That's quite nice, didn't know you could do that in JS

[33degrees]

Nope, no operator overloading in JS. Dunno about JS2, but I wouldn't expect it to be in there either since operator overloading is considered messy by many and "feature bloat" for the language (I disagree with this BTW).

One of the things I find most interesting about ruby is that most operators are actually syntactic sugar for method calls to the relevant objects; e.g. a*b+c actually translates to (a.*(b)).+(c). This makes operator overloading quite intuitive.

[MiiJaySung]

Operator overloading is a tricky one for me. I think in web apps there is little need for it and it's all too easy for a novice to abuse this feature. Something like C++, it is more suited as things like matrice/vector classes, smart pointers etc make good use of them. Still, I guess it's a useful feature

[DougBTX]

Javascript is my favorite as well

Here's an interesting page on closures in Javascript: http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/closures.html

Operator overloading is a tricky one for me. I think in web apps there is little need for it and it's all too easy for a novice to abuse this feature.

The biggest problem I've seen is confusion about what the operators mean. In Ruby, you might see someone new to the language using + instead of << to add items to a collection. In the "skeleton" thread, which is the "chain of responsibility" thread at the moment, I was paying with the ideas in Ruby, using code like this:

chain << handler1 << handler2

Which is a quite nice use of operators imo. (chain extends from Array here)

There does seem to be a tendancy to have an "if someone who I think is a poorer programmer than me is working on code I'll have to use, I'd rather it was statically typed" opinion around. Which Ruby doesn't fit very well:

class Person
  def talk
    puts "hello"
  end
end

jack = Person.new
jill = Person.new

class << jack # which doesn't mean the same as << above!
  def talk
    puts "Hello! I'm Jack!"
  end
end

jack.talk #=> Hello! I'm Jack!
jill.talk #=> hello

the concept of types == classes really doesn't work in very dynamic languages. Hence duck typing: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... well, it might as well be a duck!

Thanks for the soap box,
Douglas

[richtestani]

Which browsers have built-in functionality to run ruby script, or if it is not browser run, which servers are enabled by default?

Excuse me, if the question is a kind of stupid, but Ruby is still a blackhole to me, and I'm trying to fill the abyss of ignorance

Just like PHP, Lasso, ASP - Ruby is run server side.
Not sure how friendly it is with Apache like PHP which runs as a mod.

I suppose most Linux, OS X Windows platforms support Ruby no prob. I'm just starting to take a look at it - a friend showed it to me with Rails and it seems kind of interesting. Just don't know if I feel like porting my sites to Ruby just because its the next cool language.

[stereofrog]

I was just pointing out that in JS, number literals (e.g. 1) aren't automatically converted to the Number object unless assigned to a variable, so 1.some_method() would never work.

Well, this is not correct. Numbers are Objects, and you can always call methods for number literals:

(1).add(2);

As to operator overloading and generally ruby syntax compared to javascript: I think, javascript goes pascal way and supports only syntax which is neccessary. That's why it's compact and consistent. Ruby goes perl way and support any syntax which is possible. That's why it's bloated and confusing.

[Maian]

Woah, you're right, (1).add(2) does work. I guess that JS parsers don't understand 1.method and therefore need the parentheses, but the number literals still are Number objects.

In any case, what I said is still technically true (1.add(2) will never work)

[BerislavLopac]

Woah, you're right, (1).add(2) does work. I guess that JS parsers don't understand 1.method and therefore need the parentheses, but the number literals still are Number objects.

Probably because they expect a number after a dot following a number, as in 3.14.

That's one of the sad design errors in Javascript, to use same markers for different purposes. The same is with the overloaded '+' operator, used for two different purposes (numeric addition and string concatenation) depending on the context.

[stereofrog]

Well, using dot for qualifying is pretty common, I wouldn't call it "design error". Javascript's "please-put-brackets-here" convention isn't significantly worse than ruby's "please-dont-use-empty-fraction" one. As to concatenation, many people (me too) agree, im my "dream language" I'd eliminate bit operators (noone really needs them) and use "&" for string concatenation, what results the nice orthogonal operator set.

Generally, operator overloading (like " '-' * 5" mentioned above) is a Bad Thing.

#ruby

def doublePrice(price)
   price * 2
end

puts doublePrice(2) # ok
puts doublePrice("2") # WHAT??

[sweatje]

>> def doublePrice(price)
>>   price * 2 if price.is_a? Numeric
>> end
=> nil
>> puts doublePrice(2)
4
=> nil
>> puts doublePrice("2")
nil
=> nil

[Maian]

I think, javascript goes pascal way and supports only syntax which is neccessary.

That's not true. Array, Object, and RegExp literals are all unnecessary.

The worst thing IMO about JS is the lack of a scoping operator. C++ has this:

int x = 1;
{
  int x = 2;
  cout << x;  //2
}
cout << x;  //1

JS has to fudge it up:

var x = 1;
(function() {
  var x = 2;
  alert(x);  //2
})();
alert(x);  //1

[stereofrog]

sweatje

Thanks, I'm aware . Even better would be probably

def doublePrice(price)
	raise "Price must be a number" unless price.is_a? Numeric
	price * 2
end

but I'd like to have the language do this boring job for me. If "*" were defined for numbers only, attempt to pass the string would end with "undefined method *" exception, and that would be a Good Thing.

That's not true.

Of course, it depends on the definition of "necessity", which is absolutely personal.

[BerislavLopac]

@stereofrog: I had this idea that there is no reason not to use empty string as the concatenation operator. Like (if it was so in PHP):

echo "concatenate " return_from_a_function() " and a " $variable; 

[DougBTX]

I think, javascript goes pascal way and supports only syntax which is neccessary. That's why it's compact and consistent. Ruby goes perl way and support any syntax which is possible. That's why it's bloated and confusing.

No syntax is neccessary, it is all there to help the programmer. If you truly like the minimum possible, try Ook or even BF

Of course, it depends on the definition of "necessity", which is absolutely personal.

You say "necessity" but what you mean is "what I like to have" or even "what I'm used to"... there really is no way to argue with that

Douglas

[DougBTX]

but I'd like to have the language do this boring job for me. If "*" were defined for numbers only, attempt to pass the string would end with "undefined method *" exception, and that would be a Good Thing.

class String
  undef :*
end

'4' * 2

NoMethodError: undefined method `*' for "6":String
        from (irb):5

[sweatje]

class String
  undef :*
end

Beat me to the punch

[stereofrog]

Douglas, the minimal programming language, as everybody knows, is the Turing Machine. Strictly speaking, nothing more is neccessary to program a computer.

class String
undef :*
end

Thanks for example. And how do you express "unset * for everything other than number"? (oh yes, we ARE aware of ObjectSpace, please don't let the joke run too far )

Berislav, using "nothing" as meaningful operator would definitely raise more problems than it seems to solve.

[BerislavLopac]

Berislav, using "nothing" as meaningful operator would definitely raise more problems than it seems to solve.

I never said I though it all over.

Which problems would you expect?

[DougBTX]

Douglas, the minimal programming language, as everybody knows, is the Turing Machine. Strictly speaking, nothing more is neccessary to program a computer.

We were talking about syntax, not the 'size' of the language... and you can get languages which do less than a Turing Machine, they just aren't called "Turing complete" languges

Thanks for example. And how do you express "unset * for everything other than number"?

Probably using RJB,

str = Rjb::import('java.lang.String').new

Bcause you don't seem to like dynamic languages anyway

Berislav, using "nothing" as meaningful operator would definitely raise more problems than it seems to solve.

He said white space, not 'nothing'... you might want to talk to the Python people about that

Douglas

[stereofrog]

I never said I though it all over.

Which problems would you expect?

How are you going to interpret two subsequent spaces?

should

puts "Two"  "spaces"

print "Two spaces" or "Twospaces"?

[BerislavLopac]

How are you going to interpret two subsequent spaces?

should

puts "Two"  "spaces"

print "Two spaces" or "Twospaces"?

The latter. As elsewhere in PHP (which I took for example), whitespace is ignored. Just like

"Two" . "spaces" 

is the same as

"Two"."spaces" 

or even

"Two"              .               "spaces" 

It would be important to count your quotes, of course, or use a color-coding editor, but this would be perfectly valid syntax:

"Two"""''""''"'''''''"""'spaces' 

@DougBTX: I did say "empty string", but whitespace is more to the mark.

[Maian]

Looks like JS2 will not be including operator overloading but it was considered: http://www.mozilla.org/js/language/e...operators.html

[DougBTX]

The guy who wrote Java also thought about them, but also tuned them down