mengx / nielsenmedia.com <mengx / nielsenmedia.com> writes:

|The current Array method name 'pop' seems quite confusing to me(a new
comer)
|since it is also often used to pop the front of a FIFO queue. and often
|'unshift' will be my foreever complaints :-)

I don't think we can delete perlitics from Ruby, for compatibility and
other reasons.  But I'm trying you can live without them by providing
alternatives.  As you noticed, Ruby is not pursuing extreme
simplicity, unlike Python or Scheme.  Nor extreme complexity, of
cource, unlike Perl.  It's the matter of balance.

These are good points that would be good for FAQ "1.1 What is Ruby?" and for
the Ruby web site.

From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / netlab.co.jp>
>     on 00/02/15, Dave Thomas <Dave / thomases.com> writes:
>
> |I'm not sure I see the point of adding a new library function that is
> |the same as an existing capability. If you look at the Ruby standard
> |library, we already have a whole load of duplication (take the file
> |tests for example), which can make it quite intimidating for the
> |newcomer. Our current summary of the base library runs to over 150
> |pages!
>
> Actually, I'm trying to make Ruby natural, not simple.

This is a very important point! This is what helps makes Ruby simpler than
other languages when dealing with more complex situations.

This point would also be a good addition to FAQ "1.1 What is Ruby?" and for
the Ruby web site.

Conrad