Hi --

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Ron Fox wrote:

> The most important thing to have, when learning a new language, is the 
> flexibility to adapt, the rules, conventions and idioms of that language. The 
> thing that stands most in the way of learning a language is the stubborn 
> requirement that all languages operate in the same way.  They don't won't and 
> for good reasons.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.infoq.com/articles/coming-from-ruby

Another related matter is the recurrent wish for Ruby to become so
flexible, including in its syntax, that it will support any imaginable
programming paradigm and allow redefinition of every operator, literal
constructor, and keyword. That, too, has never made sense to me. For
one thing, and by definition, the world needs only one
pan-paradigmatic, syntax-agnostic language. Once there's one, there's
no need for a second one. So then the question becomes: should Ruby
take on that role? Or, to look at it another way: should the existence
of the pan-paradigmatic language necessitate the death of an existing
language? And if so, should the doomed language be Ruby?

Once you look at it that way, turning Ruby into language soup makes no
sense at all.

Anyway, a slightly different train of thought, but your comments
brought it to mind.


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
   Intro to Ruby on Rails  January 12-15   Fort Lauderdale, FL
   Advancing with Rails    January 19-22   Fort Lauderdale, FL *
   * Co-taught with Patrick Ewing!
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!