On 7/18/07, dblack / wobblini.net <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Robert Dober wrote:
>
> > Hmm I feel it is too easy to say look "Ruby is just perfect thus you
> > shalt not criticize", well that's how I interpreted your reply.
>
> Read it again :-)  It's not that Ruby's perfect; it's that the process
> in place for improving Ruby is, in my view, more nuanced and careful
> than if everything were made to be sort of homogenous and uniform.
>
> I don't mean I think that there should be weird or confusing
> exceptions to things -- and people certainly disagree as to what's
> weird or confusing -- but only that I don't generally find symmetry or
> consistency, as such, to be sufficient reasons for design decisions in
> Ruby.
>
> (Of course, it all depends on what level of abstraction you're dealing
> with.  I could say, for example: "Ruby is completely consistent, in
> the sense that every feature has been carefully designed by Matz" :-)
> But I know that's not what you mean.)

Oh well that, actually you are completely right, but that was not at
all I was thinking about :(

I feel that there are some, let us say "rules" that really hurt and
that's what I wanted to discuss, but that will hijack the thread,
which was not my intention, because Nil#split would help OP, so I will
just move this out slowly...
Robert
-- 
I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.
I just didn't know it would be called Ruby
-- Kent Beck