So I'm reading the "Comparing Gui Toolkits" wiki page
(http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits) and I notice that
the author characterizes one of the Ruby interfaces as "Perl-like" and
another as "immature." As someone who's been busy beavering away at his
own Ruby interface to an existing C library for some months now, I'm wondering,
just what makes a "good" Ruby interface? (After all, I don't want to 
embarrass myself by offering a bad one to the Ruby community :-)

Going by my own standards for software, I'm assuming that a good Ruby
interface should be 

1) usable, that is, not buggy, reasonably efficient, and predictable
2) complete, that is, provides a complete interface to whatever it's
interfacing with
3) documented, (no point having an interface that you can't figure out) and
4) supported, so you have some hope of getting bugs fixed, etc. 

Does this sound right? What else is important? I'm especially intrigued 
by the notion of a "Perl-like" binding vs. a
"Ruby-like" binding. What makes an interface "Ruby-like?"