On 2005-01-16, trans.  (T. Onoma) <transami / runbox.com> wrote:
> I'm taking a little poll.
>
> Let say you're Matz, but without any of the pressures of keeping up with a 
> previous version of Ruby. What one thing above all others would you like to 
> see differ about Ruby?

Docstrings. 

Let's see what Matz (the real one) says about this (in ruby-talk:20264):

"" Yes, indeed.  Docstring is for man (or woman), so that - I think -
"" interpreter itself does not need to have them.  Lisp (including Emacs)
"" and Smalltalk have interactive environment built in.  Docstrings is
"" useful in such systems.  Ruby is not.  For example, in daemon program
"" written in Ruby, docstrings are nothing but memory burden.

But, for heaven's sake, I use ruby as an interactive environment quite
reguralry! In fact, it's a beautiful interactive environment (except for
docstrings lacking). Why to close ruby into a niche, just because it
fits there excellently?

(With appropriate docsstring syntax, the interpreter could either regard
them as comments or attach them as variables to the corresponding class
or method [depending on options], so the "memory burden" argument is not
valid.)

Csaba