Very true, thanks so much for adding this! Blocks are indeed extremely natural and extremely common in all the code I read. It feels very much like using JavaScript or even a Lisp but wrapped up in a more class-based object-oriented structure. I think the strongest analogue I've used that's like that is ClojureScript - which is basically JS and lisp mashed together, so it stands to reason!
As side question, is this more or less what Scala feels like to use, just with types? Do some similar idioms arise via the functional<->OOP blending?
/developer|entrepreneur/i
Always looking for new developer talent, even those with zero experience, as you never know who's got the potential to become a great developer.
I haven't used Scala enough to comment on how it feels, but Ruby is able to straddle the intersection between procedural, object-oriented, and functional depending on how you use it.
This is increasingly true for a lot of languages, even Swift, Rust and Python, where functional approaches to problem solving have helped simplify things. Once you get lambdas it's inevitable that will happen. Maybe we'll even see more of that in C++.
Within Ruby there's a lot of push towards a more functional style as it's anticipated this will help resolve some of the major concurrency problems Ruby has. The Ruby core team seems to be opposed to threads as a general-purpose solution, instead steering towards approaches like Guilds, similar to how JavaScript has WebWorkers, but there's opportunities to parallelize things like mapif you have clean, functional code to work with.
Here's hoping there's a concurrent version of things like map in future versions of Ruby!
This is increasingly true for a lot of languages, even Swift, Rust and Python, where functional approaches to problem solving have helped simplify things.
True that! My Python code is increasingly more functional and I think the natural namespace of file boundary in Python helps with that. Well, also having functions whereas Ruby has only methods. I don't use custom classes that much anymore in Python. Pass state between functions, inject dependencies, rinse, repeat.
It's also so much easier to test when you have side effects contained in a small amount of business logic.
Rusts' Iterator trait definitely comes to mind, but I believe Ruby provides a greater set of methods, and I've definitely noticed a functional-forward trend in C++11 (and up).
/developer|entrepreneur/i
Always looking for new developer talent, even those with zero experience, as you never know who's got the potential to become a great developer.
Very true, thanks so much for adding this! Blocks are indeed extremely natural and extremely common in all the code I read. It feels very much like using JavaScript or even a Lisp but wrapped up in a more class-based object-oriented structure. I think the strongest analogue I've used that's like that is ClojureScript - which is basically JS and lisp mashed together, so it stands to reason!
As side question, is this more or less what Scala feels like to use, just with types? Do some similar idioms arise via the functional<->OOP blending?
I haven't used Scala enough to comment on how it feels, but Ruby is able to straddle the intersection between procedural, object-oriented, and functional depending on how you use it.
This is increasingly true for a lot of languages, even Swift, Rust and Python, where functional approaches to problem solving have helped simplify things. Once you get lambdas it's inevitable that will happen. Maybe we'll even see more of that in C++.
Within Ruby there's a lot of push towards a more functional style as it's anticipated this will help resolve some of the major concurrency problems Ruby has. The Ruby core team seems to be opposed to threads as a general-purpose solution, instead steering towards approaches like Guilds, similar to how JavaScript has WebWorkers, but there's opportunities to parallelize things like
mapif you have clean, functional code to work with.Here's hoping there's a concurrent version of things like
mapin future versions of Ruby!True that! My Python code is increasingly more functional and I think the natural namespace of file boundary in Python helps with that. Well, also having functions whereas Ruby has only methods. I don't use custom classes that much anymore in Python. Pass state between functions, inject dependencies, rinse, repeat.
It's also so much easier to test when you have side effects contained in a small amount of business logic.
Rusts'
Iteratortrait definitely comes to mind, but I believe Ruby provides a greater set of methods, and I've definitely noticed a functional-forward trend in C++11 (and up).I am not complaining :)
If someone ported Enumerable to Rust and/or JavaScript in all of its glory that would be amazing.