I could be reading the tone of the interview wrong, but it seems like there's a weird sort of anti-intellectualism bent to the Ruby community. In the middle, t

I could be reading the tone of the interview wrong, but it seems like there's a weird sort of anti-intellectualism bent to the Ruby community. In the middle, there's this exchange: Jonan: So you would just use pointers to point to those immutable objects? Koichi: Yes. Also, I want to note that immutable doesn't mean frozen object. Frozen objects can contain mutable objects. So I mean those immutable objects which only contain children that point to immutable objects. Jonan: So if we had a nested hash, some large data structure, we would need to freeze every object in that in order to reference it this way. Is there a facility in Ruby right now to do that? I think I would have to iterate over that structure freezing objects manually today. Matz: Not yet. Jonan: So there might be? Matz: We need to provide something to freeze these objects. Aaron: A deep freeze. Matz: Yes, deep freeze. Jonan: Deep Freeze is the name of this feature maybe? I think that would be an excellent name for it. So yes, they all agree that Ruby's current 'frozen' feature doesn't grant real immutability guarantees. But then at the end... Jonan: OK. So then, a friend asked me when I described guilds, he writes a lot of Haskell, he asked me when we are we going to have "real immutable objects", and I don't quite know what he means. Is there some distinction between an immutable object in Ruby and an immutable object in a different language that’s important? Matz: For example in Haskell, everything is immutable, it’s that kind of language, everything is immutable from day one. Jonan: Yes. Matz: But in Ruby we have mutable objects, so under that kind of situation we need a whole new construct. Aaron: Frozen objects should really be immutable. It's really immutable. Jonan: OK. Aaron: I don't... Jonan: You don't know what this person who air-quoted me "real immutable" was saying? Aaron: Yeah I don't know why they would say "real immutable". Jonan: Should I unfriend him on Facebook? I think I'm going to after this. Matz: At least tell him if you want "real immutable" go ahead and use Haskell. Jonan: I think that's an excellent option, yeah. Aaron: You just to need to say to them quit "Haskelling" me. Jonan: I should, I’ll just tell them to quit "Haskelling" me about immutable objects. I get that they are joking a bit, but do they really not understand that the Haskeller is referring to the lack of deeply immutable objects? The hostility seems a bit weird to me, given that languages like Haskell push forward our understanding of the usefulness of things like immutability, which then get absorbed into other languages (like Ruby, clearly).