The last part of your comment is just language bias. symbols and hashes are fundamental to ruby. Why would I use string concatenation like my parent, when the language support string interpolation. It's as unclear to you as generics or annotations might be to someone who didn't know Java. Surely you see that?
I think you are being pedantic about characters vs code. But, for what it's worth, I disagree. You are having to create 2 classes, define a field, a constructor and use four framework specific annotation. I consider all of that code (made up of characters).
Both versions should be unit tested. The unit test might be more important in the Ruby version, but so too will it be easier to write.
I grew up reading assembly code listings. Being able to read code is a really really important skill IMHO. Something like Java is very very easy to read. It's mainly keyword based, rather than special character based. I'd much rather read a 1,000 line Java program, than a 100 line <concise language> program.
The other point I'd make is that Java is probably about as verbose as english is. But we all manage, using English. We don't moan on and on that talking, writing, reading is so inefficient and we should all switch to something better. English also has odd grammar and spelling rules which are inconsistent and plain stupid sometimes. Yet, English works pretty well for what we use it for. Communicating.
You'd much rather read a Java program because you are already biased towards it. Yes it's easy to read, but you need to acknowledge that many other skilled developers would find it easier to read Python, or Ruby, and indeed would rather read 1,000 lines of the same over 100 lines of Java. Otherwise you are simply being willfully ignorant.
Why is Java considered inefficient and English not? Maybe because we don't need to create a new class for every concept in English. Yours is a pretty poor analogy; English vocabulary is extensive but it is not inherently verbose.
Anyway I am only writing not to say you are wrong, but rather, since other people are arguing with you reasonably and you are dismissing them without consideration, your argumentation is wrong.
"An unordered tuple Z going from a1 to an is a defined as for every x in Z then x is a1 or x is a2 ... or x is an"
than
"An unordered tuple Z (a1,...,an) is defined as [x : x = a1 v x = a2 v ... x = an]"?
I take that as not being (or not wanting to be) familiar with the language you are reading. If you'll read Ruby, at least browse a manual to know what {} and # mean.
The psuedo-Ruby code posted there is characteristic of someone who is having a knee-jerk reaction against something they don't understand. The person we are arguing against is obviously a Java zealot that will never consider using another language, so as long as he's going to accept that different people like different languages I think that's good enough for today.
The other point I'd make is that Java is probably about as verbose as english is. But we all manage, using English. We don't moan on and on that talking, writing, reading is so inefficient and we should all switch to something better.
You've made this argument in multiple posts now, so I'm just going to point out here that people doing science and engineering use formal, mathematical notations precisely because they do offer more precise and concise ways of expressing the necessary technical concepts.
There are plenty of reasons to criticise some of those notations with hindsight, but "not being English" is not among them.
I think you are being pedantic about characters vs code. But, for what it's worth, I disagree. You are having to create 2 classes, define a field, a constructor and use four framework specific annotation. I consider all of that code (made up of characters).
Both versions should be unit tested. The unit test might be more important in the Ruby version, but so too will it be easier to write.