Tanner Burson wrote:
> I've tried to stay out of this thread, because I don't feel it's
> providing, or furthering much intelligent discussion.  But what on
> earth are you attempting to say by this quote?  Or are you just
> throwing out random things for the sake of saying that somewhere, for
> a given problem domain, there is a language more suited than Ruby?  If
> so thanks, point taken.  If not would you mind clarifying by saying
> something a bit more descriptive?  Is the above quote actually in
> reference to a given language you're attempting to introduce everyone
> to?  Or is it just a generic example with no meaning whatsoever?

Sorry.

Only 2 options were presented - slow-to-write fast-to-run C and
fast-to-write slow-to-run Ruby - there are other possibilities. That's
all.