Hannu Kankaanpää wrote:
> Sean O'Dell <sean / cSePlsoAfMt.com[REMOVE_THE_SPAM]> wrote in message news:<nNR0b.3732$sx6.430 / newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> 
>>That's precisely my point.  People don't switch languages that often; 
>>not all-out switches.  When someone does, it's interesting to know why. 
> 
> But if people haven't left Ruby, what can we gain by examining this
> class of people, that consists of nobody? Nothing. So I fail to see
> the point.

I said we can ignore the opinions of these people.

>>I didn't offer a comprehensive method for evaluating Ruby, I made a 
>>single suggestion to help a person in their evaluation of it.  It's just 
>>one way to gain perspective, take it or leave it.
> 
> But I just explained earlier why it's a pretty useless way to gain
> perspective in this case. If people haven't left Ruby, how can we
> learn about it's flaws from these 0 people? So what kind of
> perspective can we gain, actually?

Again, I said the opposite.

> In your previous post, you were tempted to jump to the conclusion
> that since people haven't left Ruby, it must be superior to competitors.
> At least that's how I interpreted it, e.g. from the statement
> "I have trouble imagining even one person leaving Ruby because it
> wasn't a good enough script language for them" among others.

You're mixing things around.  Here, a quote:

 >>I didn't offer a comprehensive method for evaluating Ruby, I made a
 >>single suggestion to help a person in their evaluation of it.  It's 
 >>just
 >>one way to gain perspective, take it or leave it.

That covers what I feel about my suggestion.

Now, as far as my opinion about people leaving Ruby who have given it a 
good try, I stand by that.  They're two different things.  One is a 
suggestion for evaluating Ruby, the other is a stated opinion about 
people who have given Ruby a solid try.

> It just isn't so. I also read a Ruby tutorial shortly after learning
> Python (no emotional bonds yet), but I disliked what I saw so I decided
> to go with Python.

You haven't given Ruby a solid try, you evaluated it.

> Suppose that at first everyone is a Perl programmer. Now they
> hear about Ruby and read a couple of tutorials. Then those who
> like Ruby, will change to it and those who don't, will stick to Perl.
> Now 30% [1] of Perl programmers have left Perl, and 0% of Ruby programmers
> have left Ruby (why would they go back to the language they left?).
> Can we conclude that Ruby is superior because 0% has left it, or can
> we conclude that Ruby is worse because only 30% changed to it
> (not over 50%)?

Let's say people leave Ruby to go program in Perl.  If people dislike 
Ruby enough to throw away all their Ruby skills to go program in Perl, 
there must be some pretty strong reasons, eh?  Those reasons might be 
very interesting to someone who is evaluating Ruby.

That was my suggestion.  Go find people who have left Ruby, and find out 
why, and use that information in their evaluation of whether or not Ruby 
was worth learning.

Beyond that, it is my opinion that you will have trouble finding such 
people, because I think Ruby is a honeypot.  You can learn ALL the 
scripting languages out there, JavaScript, PHP, Perl, Python, whatever 
.... but in my opinion, Ruby is the one that people will want to return 
to most, and you will not find many, if any, people who have left Ruby 
for reasons other than simple sharp pragmatic reasons such as "my job 
makes me program in Java" or "I can't embed Ruby on this 2k chip."

Keep those separate though.  My suggestion can be conducted by you going 
around and doing your own search for Ruby ex-patriates.  My opinion 
about what you will find should be ignored.  Go prove me wrong.

	Sean O'Dell