Heyo,

> This sort of hand waving does more harm than good.  Rationalizing the
> state of a language by citing its lack of maturity just feeds the idea
> that Ruby is not yet ready for prime time.

not really, imo.  I guess my point was that they were different. 
Direct comparisons are always somewhat flawed and biased and so I was
trying to endorse examining if ruby had enough of what one needed,
rather than comparing.

Sorry to be confusing.  To clarify my view (whatever that's worth), it
does seem that ruby is in prime time.  The language itself isn't new,
but I'd say the push on english docs is relatively new, as the
situation has changed significantly in last couple of years.

> The comparison to Perl and Python is not flawed if people want to hold
> up Ruby as equal or better.  

I'm pretty sure I said 'partially flawed', but your point is a good one. :)

> The available documentation either is or is not acceptable; different people 
> have different needs and criteria, 

Right, and the message I was trying to convey is that 'I find it
acceptable and it's getting better'

> but no one is served by making excuses.

Didn't mean to be, nor would I dare.  ruby rocks.  It needs none. 
Again, sorry for the confusion.

Cameron