| ▲ | usrbinenv 9 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only difficulty in Ruby code is the block notation. Even then, it is very similar to constructs in JavaScript, Go, D and a number of other languages -- the only difference form JS would be that instead of `(x) => ...` you write `{ |x| ... }`. Questions such as > why does it not have parentheses around it but the `", "` passed to `join` does? would be exactly the same for JavaScript, Go or D. Ruby has the best syntax with regards to blocks/lambdas/closures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Qem 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Ruby has the best syntax with regards to blocks/lambdas/closures. A bit of Smalltalk shining through Ruby. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | abenga 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't know much Ruby outside of a few toy examples I wrote a long time ago. For most languages, there would be parentheses around objects you pass to functions, like `.filter({|x| x.odd? })`. This lends some consistency and makes it easy (for me at least) to understand that an anonymous function is passed to `filter`. Just separating it using spaces feels like Bash, something I find difficult to write anything slightly complicated in. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||