This is a good point. Whether the successor is Ruby 2.0, Ruby 2.2 or some yet to be invented language, the warts that Ruby has now ought to be discussed and un

This is a good point. Whether the successor is Ruby 2.0, Ruby 2.2 or some yet to be invented language, the warts that Ruby has now ought to be discussed and understood if we want the successor to be better. I personally think that Matz had some great ideas that make expressing one's self in Ruby very natural (whether you like an oo style or a functional style, a meta style, etc.) There are some oddities like the Proc vs lambda return semantics differences, but those can easily be cleaned up. So one should differentiate between "Ruby the idea" and "Ruby the legacy codebase", as the latter is not always going to live up to all of the ideals of the former.