> I think I missed 'part2' in first reading because of such a direct,
> unambiguous statement just before it. I just don't know what to make of:
> "Ruby is a work by Matz, not any of us" in the midst of a discussion of
> language semantics.  That sounded too much like "proof by authority" for
> my liking nor is that what I see going on in the Ruby community.

Just to clarify that sentence you didn't understand: it was in response to
your point about academic works and their authors coming up with new
terms.  My point was that if there's an analogy there, it's between the
academic authors and Matz, not between an author and every single person
who uses Ruby.  (And that's the point at which I tempered it by saying the
analogy isn't exact, etc.... :-)


David
__
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net

"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!