Quoteing csaba / phony_for_avoiding_spam.org, on Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:21:08PM +0900:
> 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

irb can be extended to support ri, why isn't this better than
docstrings?

Sam