From: Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@...>
Date: 2006-01-10T08:05:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Ideas on "Why Living Dangerous can be A Good Thing" in Ruby?

On 1/9/06, Phrogz <gavin@refinery.com> wrote:

> Instead, convince them that use cases are more secure than the false
> sense of security syntax- and static-checking provide. Acknowledge that
> there ARE some downsides to the openness, but that they are outweighed
> by the freedom provided.
>
> This thread is not about a language war, but touches on issues at the
> fringes of one. Remember that no one language is the Right language for
> all cases. There may be cases where the openness of Ruby makes it the
> wrong choice.

This is what I'm trying to do:
http://rubygarden.org/ruby?TheOpenNatureOfRuby

I am not trying to prove that Ruby's openness is right for everything
and everyone, but rather show that it is right and does work for
*Ruby*.

This is something that a lot of people are critical of, and I'd like
to try to explain it without terribly too much bias.