I think it was ugly and narrow-minded.  I used and liked Python, but half of 
my career was in Smalltalk and so Ruby simply feels more right than Python.
Besides, "clones" and "bad ripoffs" have the same and less functionality, 
respectively.  Ruby has more.

On Wednesday 22 August 2001 18:06, you wrote:
> Python.org links to http://www.mindview.net/Etc/notes.html#Ruby , saying
> "Bruce Eckel thinks Ruby isn't worth learning...".
>
> Some quotes...
>
> "So far I keep coming to the conclusion that Ruby is just a bad ripoff of
> Python, just like C# is a bad ripoff of C++ and to some degree Java"
>
> "For some reason, the creator of the language saw Python and decided to do
> a clone, and people who had never used Python thought it was a good idea.
> Harsh, maybe, but that's my impression: if you've used Python at all, you
> wouldn't give Ruby a second glance. "
>
> Of course, it should be noted that Bruce is starting to write a Python book
> (Thinking in Python), and so may have at some point an indirect economic
> interest in Python's success. I don't think, however, that this is his
> motivation for saying what he did.
>
> But what do you think of his assessment? I have only looked at Python
> myself; I don't know enough to compare them. I can say as a Smalltalk and
> Perl programmer that Ruby fills a need for me, and feels comfortable.