Hal Fulton <hal9000 / hypermetrics.com> writes:

> I can't argue with certainty that it's a bad thing. I'm strongly in
> favor of experimentation, in fact.
> 
> It might even be a great thing in Ruby 1.9 -- but I (personally) would
> not want to see it permanently in Ruby.
> 
> This is just my opinion, so don't take it the wrong way. And don't
> stop your experimentation.  ;)
> 
> I believe that a language should provide "all the power you need" but
> "not too much more than you need." This is admittedly highly
> subjective.
> 
> As a silly example: Suppose we made Ruby's syntax so extensible that
> we could bend and twist it pretty much any way we wished. It would
> only be days before some people started writing "Ruby that wasn't
> really Ruby." For example, someone would do: require 'ruby2pascal' and
> then the rest of his program would be in Pascal syntax. Someone else
> would do the same with Ada and whatever else is out there.
> 
> At that point, yes, I would definitely go into a coma.
> 
> Don't we see this happening to some limited extent already? I would
> say that some of the libraries and coding techniques I have seen in
> the past five years constitute "using Ruby's flexibility to undermine
> Ruby" -- if you will pardon the analogy, rather in the same way that
> terrorists have taken advantage of the freedoms in the USA to destroy
> those same freedoms. (I hesitated to type that last sentence, because
> there is no genuine comparison between casual misuse of a programming
> language and the taking of innocent lives. But I am speaking in a
> purely abstract sense: A sufficiently open system can be turned
> against itself to undermine that openness.  Flames and political
> discussion will be redirected to /dev/null).

To continue the analogy: restricting the flexibility of Ruby to prevent
syntax abuse is analogous to restricting the freedom of the U.S. to
prevent terrorist abuse (e.g., by mechanisms like the PATRIOT act).

``Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
  Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.''
    -- Benjamin Franklin

(Sorry, but you were practically asking for it. :-))