So, who runs ruby-lang.org (en) and how can we help them improve it 
along these lines?

On 2 Jan 2005, at 03:17, Nicholas Van Weerdenburg wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:22:16 +0900, James Britt
> <jamesUNDERBARb / neurogami.com> wrote:
>> darren wrote:
>>> 1.  Put a few links that target specific people.  For example, make 
>>> it easy
>>> for them to find information on how Ruby compares to their current 
>>> language.
>>> Make a link, "How Ruby compares to:  Smalltalk, Python, C, C++", 
>>> where
>>> Smalltalk, Python, C and C++ are separate links to brief examples of 
>>> code
>>> snippets that illustrate how you would do a loop (or something) in 
>>> that
>>> language and in Ruby.
>>
>> Rather than comparisons to other languages,  it would be better to 
>> offer
>> specific information on accomplishing various practical tasks.  
>> Perhaps
>> within a task-oriented section one could offer a comparison with 
>> another
>> language as a way of explaining A Ruby Way of doing something in 
>> terms a
>> Ruby newcomer might better understand, but what wins people over is 
>> the
>> specific knowledge that a tool will help them accomplish some
>> well-defined goal.
>>
>> Point people to web development kits, database bindings, 
>> text-processing
>> libraries, XML tools, unit testing frameworks, distributed programming
>> code, and so on.
>>
>> Language comparisons tend to get too abstract for most people, and are
>> often a source of goofy flame wars, as it seems nobody understands The
>> Other Language well enough to get it Just Right.
>>
>> The site should be task-oriented, and unless the visitor is a language
>> buff or dilettante, the Ruby <-> #{language} stuff is academic.
>>
>> A language attracts people looking to do something their current
>> language does not do well, if at all.
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>
> These are good points.
>
> A classic text on sales "The New Strategic Selling" makes a startling
> suggestion- don't worry about your competition. When you do, you often
> 1. aren't listening to your customer, and 2. aren't presenting your
> product as a solution to what you heard from the customer.
>
> The same probably applies here.
>
> Nick
> -- 
> Nicholas Van Weerdenburg
>