jeremy / chaos.org.uk wrote:
>I think a problem is that Ruby's standard thumbnail description: "an
>object-oriented scripting language", reminds people of Python, so they
>try to understand the language as a "better Python".  But Ruby is not
>IMHO very much like Python at all, so this is a bad way to approach
>it.  Sadly, I don't know what to do about this.

For me, Ruby is exactly a better-Python, better-
Perl, and better-Smalltalk. Of course, I disliked 
each of those languages when I evaluated them, 
and Ruby avoids the biggest problems of each, for 
me.

I think people who love Python will often dislike 
(or at least be unimpressed with) Ruby. Perhaps 
that's the same with all three languages.

Probably better to pitch Ruby as an "alternative" 
rather than an "upgrade", if you know what I 
mean.

Kevin