From: "Christoph R." <chr_news@...>
Date: 2003-08-19T01:01:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Question: immutable strings as design goal?

"Yukihiro Matsumoto" wrote:
....
 > |This points to an important "philosophical" difference that stands
 > |out to me when comparing Ruby and Python: Python gives me the feeling of
 > |trying to be a "Language for the Masses" (LFM) and tries to put
 > |restrictions on what can be done. You need to format your code in a certain
 > |way, your strings (but only a minority of other objects) are immutable by
 > |default etc. As discussed on ll1-discuss mailing list and
 > |other places LFM's are in contrast to LFSP's (Language for Smart People /
 > |experts) that tries to give you as much power as possible.
 >
 > |To me matz goal seems to be for less of an LFM than Guidos.
 >
 > Yes.  It's a language for smart wannabe (i.e people trying to be
 > smart).  I myself is one of them.

Thanks,

for nailing down why I find programming in Ruby sooo pleasurable;-))


/Christoph