In article <pan.2004.03.24.04.02.22.303009 / adslhome.dk>, Simon Strandgaard
wrote:
>Ruby does already enforce CamelCase for class/modules.
>
>'camelCase' for variables/methods is easy to confuse with
>ClassNames. Its hard to distinguish for newcomers if they 
>should use 'under_score' syntax or 'camelCase' syntax. If 
>the person has a Java background it may be natual though
>(but being friendly to Java persons may hurt Ruby).
>
>However I don't use 'camelCase' and I tend to _avoid_
>libraries which uses forces me to it. Luckily many of them
>provide underscore aliases.
>
>In Ruby2 it would be nice to get rid of 'camelCase', so
>that 'under_score' naming is enforced by the language.
>
>Should I submit an RCR about this ?
>Resistance ?  any good reasons to use camelCase ?

There are libraries which provide a bridge between Ruby and e.g. Java, .NET
and Python. For example, you can have Ruby call a Java method. If the Java
method is called `someJavaMethod' then you will want your Ruby code to say
`foo.someJavaMethod(123)`.