> clashing classes not being an error You’re probably talking about the ability to reopen (or “monkey patch”) classes (which is why defining the same class aga

> clashing classes not being an error You’re probably talking about the ability to reopen (or “monkey patch”) classes (which is why defining the same class again can’t be an error). That’s a powerful tool if you use it carefully, especially for debugging or hacking on someone else’s code. > blocks feel like a more cumbersome/limited version of lambdas Yes, that’s basically what they are. You could totally write JS-like code and pass even multiple lambdas to methods. However, the most common use case — passing a single important lambda (e.g. to a “map” or “each” method) — gets special treatment and its own language feature. > what's the magic everybody loves For me it’s the “batteries included” factor. Ruby can do a lot out of the box and most of the interfaces are well designed with tons of useful methods with descriptive names. It feels like someone cares about my experience and is trying to anticipate what I might actually need. Also the object oriented mechanisms are easy to understand and don’t feel weirdly bolted on like in Python.