Bradley Kite wrote:
> [in reply to no single post in particular]
>
> Well I really had no idea of how much emotional ettatchment people had
> to their languages of choice.
>
> When I posted my original question, I had no idea that the later
> conversation would
> contain such passion, humor, sarcasim and personal insult.

There has always been heated debate about which programming language was
best (or better than another).  "better" is not easily defined (and it
also changes with context) so there's plenty room for personal taste and
preference.  These in turn increase the likelyhood of heated debate...

> Any way, my orginal post stemmed from my curiosity with regards
> to what Ruby was trying to achieve:
>
>>> I'm a relatively new Ruby programmer, I am curious as to what Ruby
>>> is trying to achieve that other scripting languages do not already
>>> offer (Apart from the syntactic differences of yet another
>>> scripting language, that is).
>
> The highly non-real-world and simplistic benchmarks were not meant to
> provoke the zeolots, but rather well displayed my lack of
> understanding
> for what Ruby was trying to achieve. Of which I still dont quite
> understand

Hm...  Maybe you should just use it for a while and see for yourself?

IMHO Ruby tries to be a pure OO dynamic language with clean syntax that
doesn't make simple tasks more complicated than necessary.  And it does
this just great.  My 0.02 EUR.

Kind regards

    robert