From: Stu <stu@...>
Date: 2011-05-17T16:41:52+09:00
Subject: Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation.

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
>
> While I assume that the OP is trolling with that first paragraph, I can't be sure... I think that a lot of the responses in this thread shouldn't have been made. It's one thing when you're Ilias, but in this case we really can't be sure. Robert and Stu's responses were fine examples of how we shouldn't behave.
>

While it certainly depresses me that you feel this way Ryan and I hope
one day you and I can get past that.  Though you may see his post for
it's ambiguity I do not.

I do see the OP as either an megalomaniac due to the assumption 'that
ruby is NOT good for computing' and simply trolling on syntactical
structure. I imagine his stress comes from this iteration in learning
yet another programming language and realizing it really can't be
grokked as quickly as his other nth paradigm languages.

Ruby has become his strawman with statements his statements like: We
don't want to be bothered with ANOTHER arbitrary syntax -- do we? and
<having too many degrees of freedom> makes the task more difficult

This here is the flamebait I responded passionately to.

OP in effort to avoid your argument ad hominem in the future please read this:

http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

After that if you would like to have a discussion about how the
harmonic minor scale relates to the Ruby programming language we can
then discuss in euphemistic doublespeak how music has evolved from the
dark ages to the early renaissance.

~Stu