From: Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@...>
Date: 2005-10-29T02:46:53+09:00
Subject: Re: "Readability" inflation

On 10/28/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
> Hi --
<snip>
> No, I do not think Ruby should stagnate and be dead.  If 1.8.3 were
> the last version, it would not stagnate and be dead, because people
> *use* it and do things with it.  The fact that, for me, that counts as
> non-stagnation does perhaps mean that I am quite conservative about
> language change.  I don't think the language needs to change, unless
> something is truly broken or missing.

I love the current Ruby syntax.

If 2.0 just contained a faster Ruby, and kept the same syntax, I'd be overjoyed.