3 ms·
I'd say the strongest possible interpretation of what stevebmark said would include older additions to the language such as from this section of the article: -
by mclehman 8y ago
I'd say the strongest possible interpretation of what stevebmark said would include older additions to the language such as from this section of the article:
---------
Here’s a list of changes and additions that I certainly never needed (or wanted):
Ruby 1.9 hash literals
Refinements
%i literals
Rational/Complex literals (2/3r, 2+1i)
Endless ranges (1..)
Safe navigation operator (&.)
- rlue 8y agoI think what drstewart is getting at is the vagueness of stevebmark's claim: > I really appreciate other programming language ecosystems... that have abandoned things like this He doesn't articulate what "things like this" are, and instead leans on bbatsov's critique, though it's not clear how. It seems you're suggesting he means "the particular syntax additions bbatsov doesn't like," but that doesn't make sense, either—you're telling me he means that other language ecosystems have abandoned Ruby 1.9 hash literals, refinements, %i literals, etc.?