From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2005-10-29T07:36:10+09:00
Subject: Re: "Readability" inflation

Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> 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
> 

And I'd be happy with just native threads. Nothing else.

I find it interesting that before 1.8 was released, I was frequently
installing the latest 1.7.x because it had some new feature I needed. I
kept that up for a while with 1.9.x just out of habit, but didn't really
need anything that was in 1.9 but not 1.8. I'm very happy with 1.8.2, in
fact.

-- 
      vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407