[ruby-talk:01311] Re: Draft of the updated Ruby FAQ

From: Conrad Schneiker <[e-mail]>

> I think that "1.9 Which is correct, Ruby or ruby?" needs to additionally
> include and describe a third name, "Ruby!", since Ruby is our method for
> changing the programming world for the better, right?

I forgot to mention that I think it would be better to designate
"destructive methods" as "change methods" or "replacement methods".

Ruby is remarkably free of Perl and Python types of idiosyncrasies, however
this accessory piece of somewhat counterintuitive jargon substantially mars
Ruby's linguistic "human interface" as it were.

While this would be inconvenient in the near term, in the long term, the
more natural and less connotatively misleading designation will facilitate
the learning of Ruby by non-computer-language specialists--which often
includes the sort of people who will be making the decision of whether to
allow Ruby fans to use Ruby in the work place or to teach it in high
schools--two areas (among several) that will have a large differential
impact on the use of Ruby several years from now.

Conrad