> I think the reason it's not part of the language is that you
> **should** alter the language for specific things. I kind of
> overloaded on Perl and went to Java and Python, and I actually found
> the stability of those languages a nice change. so when I got into
> Ruby, the idea of changing fundamental types for specific programs
> seemed notorious and reckless, what the Pythonistas used to snort
> derisively about and call "Perlish," but I'm thinking it's actually a
> very sensible approach. you shouldn't view Ruby the language as
> fundamental - you should view it as a **template** for the language
> you're actually going to use once you fully define the problem space
> and your corresponding solution. like the Paul Graham idea about Lisp,
> that you build the program down to the language and build the language
> up to the program, except a lot more of the work is already done for
> you when you start.
> 

Chiming in here to say that this paragraph is an awesome way of
describing the way things seem.

Cheers,
  Arlen.