From: Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-talk@...>
Date: 2005-10-29T06:10:12+09:00
Subject: Re: "Readability" inflation

Joe Van Dyk wrote:

> On 10/28/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

> > 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.

I agree.  If all Ruby 2.0 brought was a VM I’d be happy.  That, and
M17N...and perhaps keyword arguments ;-D,
        nikolai

-- 
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}