Jeff Mitchell graced us by uttering:
> Ruby could be wildly more popular if it had ... Brackets.
> 
> Huh?  What do you mean "brackets"?
> 
> Brackets.  Ruby doesn't have enough brackets.
> 
> Hmph! I think ruby has the exact right amount of brackets!
> 
> But not enough to become popular.  Brackets are a prerequisite,
> didn't you know?
[ snipped vast majority of farce ]
> 
> I am being more serious than it may or may not appear.  I think
> ruby missed out on a big chance here.  It is absurd, but it's
> true.

If it weren't for the obscene popularity of Visual Basic, you
might have had a point.

But if to be VB is to be popular, I would prefer relative
anonymity.

> "Hey this looks just like Java!  I know Java!  I can't wait to
> start using ruby as my no-separate-compile-step language!"

Brackets will not automatically make iterators obvious to coders
who have no experience with them.  Iterators already support
brackets and have thus far confused many a Java coder.

Tim Hammerquist
-- 
Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them
the usual way.  This happens to us all the time with computers,
and nobody thinks of complaining.
    -- Jeff Raskin, "Doctor Dobb's Journal"