> > I prefer a language that loudly shouts at with discriptive 
> information 
> > when
> > I do something wrong instead of running but producing erroneous 
> > results.
> 
> Probably the #1 reason why, having tried using C, I have no intention 
> of ever exposing myself to such a poorly designed language again.
> 
It is plain beautiful -- to call "poorly designed language" something
hugely popular and successful as C. Doesn't it bother you that Ruby
itself is written in such a trash? Poor Matz, he must have known better
when choosing his implementation language. 

For your record, C does perfectly what it was supposed to do, not more
no less. Even years of its evolution did not introduce anything totally
orthogonal to its initial "poor" design. Blindly dismissing C, without
(as I understand) much experience with it, does not do you any service,
other than coo-coo sign behind your back. 

Gennady.