Re: Dear Matz,

Steven Lumos wrote:
> I just stumbled on this really great quote[1] and was inspired to
> write this.
> 
>> [Q: why does Ruby have callcc?]
>>
>> The official answer is "why not".  I provide the features, you use
>> them.
>>                                                      matz.
> 
> For the last few years, it seems like Ruby has been invaded by
> minimalists.  I'm using that in a relative sense, and a good-natured
> ribbing sense even, this is Ruby after all.
> 
> There are many existing languages designed to be easy to implement.
> 
> There are many existing languages designed to be easy to optimize.
> 
> There are many existing languages designed to be "safe".
> 
> There are (many?) existing languages designed to have only one way to
> do it.  The most popular one is in almost all respects on par with
> Ruby.
> 
> Ruby is not one of many.  Ruby is special.  Another quote[2].

I would say "practicalists" rather than "minimalists". A language that 
performs terribly and can't be used for anything more than trivial 
applications would be useless, even if it's the most fun language in the 
world. There has to be a balance as a language grows up. The danger in 
not critically examining features to balance the many 'ilities (utility, 
scalability, etc) is remaining a "toy" language.

>> I also wanted Ruby to be natural to use, and I wanted programmers to
>> feel  at ease  when  coding  in it  so  they can  enjoy  the act  of
>> programming itself.  To me,  this is the  ultimate goal  of language
>> design. I have  to admit, I don't believe I  can satisfy everyone --
>> every  programmer has  different needs.  But I  still believe  I can
>> satisfy many, including myself.
> 
> There are very few languages designed to be enjoyable.
> 
> As one of the satisfied many, I felt compelled to provide a
> counterpoint to the general sort of pushback against new features,
> experimental spirit and, well, fun.
> 
> We're out here, even if our quiet sighs of satisfaction cannot be
> heard.  We don't care if you don't have a use-case for every new idea.
> We trust your instincts, so should you.  You have to take big steps
> sometimes if only to not get stuck in a local optimum.
> 
> Please make Ruby as big, rich, and beautiful as you believe it needs
> to be.

Many of us enjoy having reasonable performance as well. It is just as 
enjoyable to use a language that performs well and isn't the subject of 
ridicule and exclusion because it too often trades performance for 
"fun". I'm not saying Ruby shouldn't continue to be feature-rich and 
programmer-oriented...but there should be overwhelming desire before 
adding a feature that automatically cripples performance or scalability. 
Be sure you understand what you're really asking for before you argue 
vehemently to add features.

- Charlie