> > Inferring from people's response, I realize that this subject is
> > rather controversial.  But if we can think positively just for a
> > moment, all the discussions can also be viewed for the goodness of
> > Ruby itself.
> >
> > I don't think the intention is ever to cannibalize or destroy Ruby
> > at all.  It is more to give Ruby some challenges, and if it is
> > viewed that the current Ruby can answer these challenges well,
> > then we just move on.
> 
> But consider:
> 
> 1. What about the challenges that Ruby poses to programmers, in the
> ways they think about languages?  Is the burden entirely on the
> language?

I think those are absolutely valid discussions in every way shape and
form!!!! .... I just don't want to hear them or have no interest in
them.  This is the equivilant to -questions for FreeBSD.  VERY useful
to many many many many people.... but isn't so useful to the people
who wrote the software or reach a proficient status with whatever.  :)

> 2. What is "well"?  Matz has said over and over that he makes
> trade-offs and compromises, quite knowingly.  That means that Ruby
> will probably never do certain things "well", in some absolute
> sense.  But Ruby as a totality does things remarkably well.

I don't mean to spawn a macro economics discussion, but I just watched
the "Commanding Heights" again this last weekend (excellent PBS
special) and think that a free market where someone can start up and
do any of this is good for the project.  Price controls and regulated
economies don't scale so well.

> > It is good if Ruby stays as the current Ruby.  However, language
> > technology also continues to progress.  When I first learned Tcl,
> > I was very excited about it.  But then I found Perl was easier and
> > more powerful.  And then I found Python was easier and as
> > powerful.  And then I found that Ruby was more consistent, as
> > easy, and as powerful.  Based on my personal experience, some
> > languages got popular and then faded away, while others stay for a
> > long time.  Ruby also has two choices: to remain the same or to
> > change with new technologies.
> 
> Ontogeny does not recapitulate philogeny in programming languages
> :-) In other words, while things may evolve and change, any
> *particular* programming language does not have to go through all
> the phases that the ambient history is going through.  This is why
> there's more than one programming language :-)

Yup... but I like Ruby and am going to stick with it until it squishes
Java, Perl, and that .Not nastieness from M$.  It's got all of the
right stuff to be a great language.

> It would be a bit like comp.lang.perl.beyond instead of
> comp.lang.ruby....  or something.

Umm... comp.lang.perl.beyond is comp.lang.ruby.  ::grin::  -sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden