matt wrote:
> Thanks for bringing these slides to my attention.

Your welcome. I'm glad something good came from this post at least.

Sorry about the html btw, should have removed that.

> This one caught my
> eye:
> http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/rc2006/mgp00027.html
>
> "We need to Document Ruby (if Possible)." as part of the Design Game of
> improving Ruby.
>
> That kind of a statement is what could potentially kill the language.
> We can have the best language on the Planet, but if the language
> features are only accessible to those that are willing to go code-diving
> for the answers, then the target audience is going to be slim.
>
> The truth is that there are a lot of well intentioned programmers out
> there, but they don't have the first clue (or inclination) to go digging
> deep into the bowels of Ruby (or any language).
>
> That is why some of the less elegant languages have succeeded, and have
> such a large following.  It is (in large part) because of there
> documentation. It is up-to-date, adequate, easy to search, and
> well-defined.
>
> I don't pretend that all share my view on documentation, but for the
> Ruby leader/CEO to put documentation so far down on the list I think is
> going to make it difficult for language to grab ahold of programming
> share the way that Perl, Python and PHP have.

Yea, I didn;t notice taht before. that is an odd statment to make. But
I wouldn't put too much emphisis on it --sometimes people say things
without meaning all the conotations tha can go with them.
 
T.