--hlPgYISBWVieKjGZ049
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 14:23 +0900, dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
> I don't think it's necessary to pigeon-hole Ruby philosophically.

I mainly intended to raise the question of whether bringing social
obligation into the discussion that way was really appropriate.  It
tends to be poisonous in technical forums.

> It's worth noting that a result of Matz's style of development, as
> well as the contributions of the community, there actually aren't very
> many things in the language that are vulnerable to this kind of
> treatment.  Singleton classes seem to be the magnet for it.

There are two reasons for this:  one, the name is one of the few aspects
of Ruby which people are fairly consistently unhappy with, and secondly,
it's an issue of human linguistics rather than of the programming
language.

I think we should expect an issue of human language to be resolved in
the fashion natural to it, rather than the more "up-front" and
centralized fashion typical for programming language issues.

(Of course, as noted elsewhere, I am a staunch linguistic descriptivist.
So perhaps that colors my thinking.)

> > I'm not a Taoist, but I think the notion of "striving-without-striving"
> > describes the necessary ethic nicely.  Relax.  This is not about control
> > or respect or disrespect or the Ultimate Fate of Ruby.
> 
> Right -- it's about what to call singleton classes, and I wish people
> would discuss it and then let Matz decide.

I think that's what people are doing, basically.  That discussion is
simply going to be accomplished a bit differently than it would be for a
feature of the programming language itself.  The negotiation of new
human vocabulary involves trying alternatives in the real world and
seeing what sticks.

Based on Matz's most recent post, it sounds like that's what he's
waiting for too.

-mental

--hlPgYISBWVieKjGZ049
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDlvyAcUNIGiXCc4MRAvUBAKC1ptgZW5oYGbAytUwVRj3uBYo+AgCfWNnX
sEnj2FOoAVuOI1L/yiTnz+Ukc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--hlPgYISBWVieKjGZ049--