From: why the lucky stiff <ruby-talk@...>
Date: 2005-10-29T02:09:38+09:00
Subject: Re: "Readability" inflation

David A. Black wrote:

> Over the years and, I think, particularly in recent months, there's
> been a ton of suggestions for changing Ruby syntax.  The majority
> involve adding new semantics through new punctuation.  Most of the
> rest involve some kind of distillation of existing syntax into
> something smaller.

So, is your compaint about the suggestions?  Or about Matz' own recent 
tinkerings with the language?  Because although your overall comments 
lean toward the first, your specific examples point towards changes Matz 
has messed with.  Discussions he has encouraged.

I think suggestions from the audience are harmless.  Matz rarely gives 
credence to these and even accepted RCRs go untouched for upwards of 5 
years.  Anyway, I'd hate to silence the crowd, these are our people.  
These are casual discussions, do they really have the gravity you think 
they have?

And the syntax choices that Matz plays with often get shelved.  He's 
played with the local block variables syntax since I can remember.  I 
like that Ruby development is slow.  He does wait for our comfort.

_why