I’m not digging it.

To me, it looks ugly and seems like a waste. It wouldn’t hurt to have more diversity though, I guess. To a point.

Yeah, doesn’t fit right in my brain.

Ugly. Unnecessary.

I don’t like it either

Y’know – compared to ‘end’ ‘end’ ‘end’ it ain’t too bad. You guys have a better suggestion?

I actually prefer ‘end’ ‘end’ ‘end’. :-/

I’m not really keen on it either.

end = readable, parseable

;; = just parseable

Feels too much like shell programming, to me.

case ${foo}
  foo) echo Foo!
       ;;
esac

I don’t think so, personally.

Deer footprints dashing away.

And if we’re lucky, they’ll never dash back!

“end” always remdinded me of Pascal. I’ll be a lone dissenter and say I like it.

Death to the semicolons of Gemini!

Those aren’t deer footprints, they are tears of pain streaming from my eyes.

Good gravy, it’s hideous…

Like Austin, I’m having sh flashbacks.

I should said ‘funny’ instead of ‘wonderful’...

 
 def fugly
  # Cripes! At least use :) or
  # something cute
 ;;
 

Oooh, even better:

def bash_like
  if you_like_it?
    you_are_nuts!
  fi
fed

From an aesthetic point of view it lacks the symmetry of do...end and {...} :\

i hate it!

Someone posted this to #ruby-lang (my apologies, I forget who it was), and I was struck by the simplicity and elegance of the solution…I wonder where I’ve seen it before…

By using an sexp-like syntax you waste so much less space and it’s not nearly as ugly as curly-braces. The downward staircase of end-s has always irked me, it feels unnecessary and is quite possibly the only wart on an otherwise beautiful language (IMHO).

Slyphon: Oh, neat. I shall have to start doing that. Drive my co-conspirators crazy.

Snow cannot last—Spring!

Novel syntax fails to please;

Deer hoofprints erode.

I don’t like it either. I might tend to agree with “language diversity”, but having to read that in someone else’s code would annoy me.

I am going to say that it is not all that bad. It must be our natural archetypes or something… bash == evil?

It would be nice to have a third option for when things don’t seem to look right (arguable, though, that it would never look right with these). I say we leave it in at least for one month to see if it will grow on some. If at that point there does not seem to be a good following then rip it out and throw it to the raging crowd who will then systematically rip it to shreds never to be seen again.

ok, I’ll tell you: I want \n to act as a terminator for methods on one line, so that def foo(x) print x

is equal to

def foo(x) print x end

this would avoid end;end;end; sindrome and also implicitly suggest short methods :)

I like the step-down staircase of end end end, I align em all up with their opening statements and I visually match em.

I dont like it much, but different (good) ways to do the same thing are usually ..useful. So i hope this stays…

class Foo
   def self.foo(x)
      p x
   ;;
;;

Foo.foo "Hello, Qu!"

vs.

(class Foo
   (def self.foo(x) p x))

Foo.foo "Hello, Qu!"

I can really dig that sexp-esque syntax.

Syntax is like Marmite. Some people will just hate it. :-)

Of course sexp is the Omega point for all programming language. Just wait, you’ll see.

Personally I’ve hacked my Ruby interperter to recognize non-breaking space (0xA0) as the end-of-block terminator. Now girls always talk to me at parties (but I can’t tell when they’ve finished talking. Hmm.)

class Foo < Bar
  def foo(x)
    p x
  -;
-;

Lisp style.  easy to count -; than ;;

class Foo < Bar
  def foo(x) p x -;-;

-; looks like tiny upside-down claw hammers. Like I might be prying up bad code :)