David A. Black wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, Hal Fulton wrote:
>>If you don't believe there is such a thing as "too much flexibility," then we
>>will have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Just so Hal doesn't feel all alone, I'll put in a note of skepticism
> :-)  I'm not eager for Ruby to have, in essence, no fixed syntax.  I
> think Ruby's strength lies largely in its specificity as a language --
> a language that is good at domain-specific things, but still a
> particular language -- and if it were turned into a kind of
> proto-language, I would feel a sense of loss.  Also, I don't want to
> have to learn new syntactic rules every time I want to read a program
> or use a library.  

I agree with Hal and David. Part of what appeals to me about Ruby (or 
any other language) is identity or integrity--in essence, having a Ruby Way.

I don't complain about it, but I find the substantial volume of traffic 
on ruby-talk comparing Ruby to this or that language, or discussing how 
to make Ruby more like this or that, tiresome. I read ruby-talk to 
become more expressive and powerful in (this) Ruby, and I really don't 
care how it stacks up in a Consumer Reports-style feature comparison.

I'm especially wary of extensions to syntax. I don't mind looking up 
semantics, but I want to handle syntax without help.

Steve