> I consider losing structure and adding complexity just to be able to read something out loud a net loss. So would I. But Matz wrote early on that 'Ruby is de

> I consider losing structure and adding complexity just to be able to read something out loud a net loss. So would I. But Matz wrote early on that 'Ruby is designed to make programmers happy,' and that is behind lots of language decisions in Ruby and Rails. Reading aloud isn't an isolated end goal but more a way of describing that design principle. Writing Ruby should be a pleasant interaction, and Ruby programmers should feel like they are talking to a friendly machine. There are many ways to write the same code, and you can develop a distinctive writing style if you want. Many Rubyists talk about and write code like it's poetry, and feel like they have a voice through the code they write. Can you say that about a single Java programmer? This isn't an accident, and effects like this are not frivolous entertainment the Real Programmers can ignore. It isn't a perfect vision, and you're absolutely right that sometimes it introduces complexity, but it's a real philosophy with tangible benefits, and pluralisation is a tiny part of that vision.