Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
>> "At the core, I think Ruby is defined by Rails.  Sooner or later, the
>> Rails guys will realize they're the dog and start finding a tail that's
>> easier to wag for the customers with lots of money.  That will likely
>> lead to fractured Ruby syntax and fractured Ruby dialects."
> 
> 
> Am I the only one failing to see any sense in this?
> 

No.

The premise is untrue; Ruby is defined by Matz.


-- 
James Britt

"The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with
computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity."
  - Edsger W. Dijkstra