James Britt wrote:
>
> Francis Hwang wrote:
> ...
> > I won't speak for him, but I think it's a fairly widespread opinion. My
> > guess as to why is that people automatically think programming
> has to be
> > difficult (i.e. lots of static typing, necessity of expensive IDEs,
> > etc.) in order to be effective. Rubyists come along with their talk of
> > enjoying their work and serious Javaists think to themselves "That's
> > nice, but there's no way that would work at my serious company doing my
> > serious thing."
>
> Agreed.  And I think it's the "scripting language" ghetto, and ignorance
> about dynamic typing (which, in it's worst form, equates it with weak
> typing), that keeps many people from appreciating Ruby (and other agile
> languages as well).
>
> Educating people on dynamic typing is important, but I think I'd be
> happier if people would simply stop referring to Ruby as a "scripting"
> language (too many pejorative connotations, right or wrong), and simply
> described it as an *interpreted* language instead.

Actually, I liked what you said in your previous paragraph -- Ruby is an
"agile language"!

Curt