On Friday 03 October 2003 02:20 pm, paul vudmaska wrote:
>
> I'd probably fall into the 'programmatic idealistic'
> side. I wont boast more than a month's or so
> experience with Ruby so i probably should not have
> started the thread.
>

Heya, thanks for the thread.  I think your willingness to jump into 
conversation on the list despite your newness to Ruby is really cool.  Sure, 
there's dissenting opinions.  You have your own vision for how you'd like to 
use the language and what the potential future for the language could be.  
I'm sure continued thought will yield good things.

Don't regret the discussion.  Some say there's too much banter and volume on 
the list, but at the same time we measure Ruby's success by the volume on the 
list.

> 1) e4x wont be the only language that attempts to fold
> xml into it natively. It is in the evolutionary path
> of any general purpose language, imo

I think ideas like this could be experimented with outside of core.  Meaning: 
someone with the can-do spirit checks out Ruby from CVS and hacks away.  An 
idea like this could be more convincing if available as a set of patches or 
alternative interpreter (such as Stackless Python).  Sounds similiar to e4x 
already, eh?

It'd be great if everyone in our community accepted everyone and every idea 
that was presented (a wealth of endless backslapping that began to take its 
toll on our shoulder blades), but I think chipping away at an idea will 
enhance it.  Anyways, the idea has merit and I'd love to see some working 
ideas that ensure the implosion of my brain.

_why