From: Jared Nuzzolillo <onceuponapriori@...>
Date: 2005-08-17T01:48:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby for my new business?

------=_Part_18_22279832.1124210904378
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Brock,

Bear in mind that my viewpoints have evolved considerably since I crafted m=
y=20
list. At the time, I associated a language's flexibility with its=20
inheritance model: i.e., languages with prototype-based inheritance always=
=20
seemed far more flexible to me. Ruby has since proved that class-based=20
languages can be just as flexible and expressive as prototype-based=20
languages, but I still feel that prototype-based languages have a certain=
=20
conceptual simplicity and elegance that is lacking in class-based=20
alternatives.=20

The other issues are really minor, but to put them briefly:=20

1) I really miss the object literal syntax from javascript=20
2) I love the way Io (http://www.iolanguage.com/) allows you to grab a hold=
=20
of the message tree and modify, remove or defer nodes of it at will=20
3) I love the transparent futures of Io...

Of course, I have considered switching to Io, but Ruby somehow seems more=
=20
practical. There is just too much to love about Ruby, including this amazin=
g=20
community.

Thanks,
Jared

On 8/16/05, Brock Weaver <brockweaver@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> We need more people like you Jared! Asking fellow developers what
> their thoughts are, basing business decisions off of their responses.
> Glad to see that actually happens in some companies.
>=20
> I would gladly be a remote ruby developer for you -- there's not much
> else to do in Iowa anyway. :)
>=20
> Just out of curiosity, what is the one or two that Matz missed out of the=
=20
> ten?
>

------=_Part_18_22279832.1124210904378--