[chuck-users] ChubbY (ChucK in Ruby)?

[Tom Lieber]

2009/2/10 Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com>:
>> It's hard for me to accept this, since, like you, I find the language
>> lacking.  To be precise, the first 5 minutes of Chuck are pure joy,
>> but it becomes an uphill battle from there to do anything of
>> significant complexity.  The creators of Chuck want very much to keep
>> it simple.  In order to do this, they have to toe a very fine line
>> between functionality and approachability.
>
> I think I'm fairly aware of the sort of thing you are trying and doing and
> I'm not sure I agree what you are fighting is a actual language issue. IMHO
> the more relevant question there at this moment is some bad bugs and a lack
> of documentation. I'm thinking about the type system and casting in
> particular here.

If he has the same gripes about ChucK stemming from oscillating
between Ruby and ChucK all the time, the problem is definitely the
language. Whenever I work on Ruby for a while and come back to ChucK,
I miss blocks, and being able to reopen classes to define functions,
overloading, optional arguments, modules, etc., etc. The ChucK
language is incredibly limiting.

> I too would like things like functors and i'd like (chuck-) operator
> overloading but not at the expense of coherence.

Mmm, functors.

-- 
Tom Lieber
http://AllTom.com/