ben2004uk at googlemail.com
Tue Sep 30 13:41:16 EDT 2008
hehehe! I actually meant how the code can progresses and improves as
you move along the line :)
2.0 (not great) --> 3.0 (better) --> Ruby (Much better!)
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Mike Moore <blowmage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Curt Hagenlocher <curth at microsoft.com>
>> > I agree, Anders doesn't allow the argument to be so convincing.
>> > However, I generally go 2.0 > 3.0 > Ruby - Ruby still better.... :)
>> Sorry about the pendantry, but I think you wanted that to say
>> "2.0 < 3.0 < Ruby"
> I hope that was what he was trying to say. Otherwise, he could be the IT
> Director at my old job.
>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
More information about the Ironruby-core