Al Chou <hotfusionman / yahoo.com> writes:

> --- Joel Wilsson <siigron / sii.linuxsweden.nu> wrote:
> > Interesting (and pleasing) to see that the comments
> > this time aren't all "we don't need Ruby, we already
> > have Python", but instead "wow, looks cool".
> 
> And this despite the fact that that developerWorks article is just about the
> poorest representation of Ruby I have seen.  I'm not saying it's _bad_ in an
> absolute sense, but reading it reminded me of every other quick language
> tutorial I've ever read.  It demonstrates essentially nothing about
> Ruby-specific things that set the language apart from others; if I hadn't read
> anything about Ruby prior to it, I would have shrugged and thought, "yet
> another programming language <yawn>".

I rated the article and submitted comments. I suggest everyone else do so
as well.

Jim
-- 
Jim Menard, jimm / io.com, http://www.io.com/~jimm/
"We get a million calls a month saying, 'Hey, this product is confusing.'" 
    -- Bill Gates on the volume and tone of Microsoft's customer feedback.