From: Chris Uppal <chris.uppal@...>
Date: 2003-12-03T00:42:10+09:00
Subject: Re: anything disappearing from Ruby for 2.0?

T. Onoma wrote:

> > [...]  Ruby *so nearly* fits the bill -- kinda fustrating ;-)
>
> I really don't understand this. You won't use Ruby b/c it has some EXTRA
> Perl-like features?

Yes, that's right.

Elegance, simplicity, clarity -- the things that (IMO) are necessary for a
language to have that "effortless" feeling -- are dependent (among other
things) on a reasonably complete absence of clutter and other warts.

For *me* the stuff starting on p216 of the pickaxe is a long list of warts.  (I
emphasise that I'm not knocking Ruby; it's just that its current form is
optimised for use in a certain way -- shortish scripts -- that I'm not
interested in, and so those features of the language add clutter without
providing compensating value.)

> Just don't use them.

That's sort of like saying "if you don't like foul language then don't swear"
;-)

    -- chris