From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2002-12-16T16:24:48+09:00
Subject: Re: help -- persuade my boss to adopt ruby

Hi,

In message "Re: help -- persuade my boss to adopt ruby"
    on 02/12/16, "Bulat Ziganshin" <bulatz@integ.ru> writes:

|java is "c++ better than c++" :) and just in this role java conquered
|the world. i say in my original posting about that type of use - ruby
|can be used for large-scale, compiled applications, but Matz waits
|that corporate America will go to the pure Ruby rather than adding
|features which will drive Ruby to corporate world

I don't understand what you mean at all.

Did "corporate America" ask me something that I refuse?

|concrete, i feel that Ruby is not strict enough and can't be compiled
|for more or less fast execution. when i try to advocate these changes,
|Matz says that Ruby is more or less a toy and he wants to find more
|elegant ways to deal with these issues. beatiful! but on other side,
|this gives us to the fact that Ruby will never steal Java place at
|language racing

Did we envolved in the "langauge race" of any kind?
If Ruby steals the Java place, will it make any difference for me?
Remember no one but netlab.jp pays for me.

And finally, I couldn't find good balance between Ruby's goodness and
what-you-called-strictness.  If you have any concrete feature
proposal, I'm always open, as long as feature-added Ruby still remains
being Ruby.

If your ideas hinders the "Ruby Way", then go ahead, choose your
language, or even create your own one.

|i don'n like the doublethinking i see here - when Ruby apologets says
|"it's not Ruby way" they must realize that in fact they say "wide
|appreciation of language is not Ruby way". Ruby will be a pure
|language which seek for future language directions OR instrument for
|Real Programmers - not both at the same time

 * wide appreciation is not my goal.

 * I believe it can be both at the same time, who proved it's wrong?
   You?  Notice being "instrument for Real Programmers" does not
   require wide appreciation.

 * parhaps your definition of "Real Programmers" is somewhat different
   from mine.

							matz.