> I don't even know Ruby, but it's clear that the idea that Ruby is X is drastically wrong and almost insulting. That's a pretty big assertion to make for any

> I don't even know Ruby, but it's clear that the idea that Ruby is X is drastically wrong and almost insulting. That's a pretty big assertion to make for any non-trivial value of X. Let me try and break it down a little more. He's spot on about CoW, this is a similarly big issue for memory consumption of long running perl applications (though in our case because of caching things in the value struct). Lexical scoping ... after years of lisp and perl I find that any language that lacks that feels horribly primitive, to be entirely honest. Concurrency ... hahahahaha oh dear. He should've played with the coroutine stuff before claiming events were the -only- way, but they're certainly the default way for a lot of dynamic languages, and they're definitely better for low level plumbing than high level code. Functional Reactive Programming approaches are amazingly nicer once you get the hang of them. So - from those axes, yes, it's amazingly primitive. You seem to be complaining that he didn't -mention- the community? He was trying to contrast; Haskell also has a thriving community so short of trying to get into a community DSW I don't see why he'd mention that. All the rubyists I know would readily agree that, on the axes that he's referring to, ruby is far more primitive than haskell; and I think they'd also agree that a lot of current ruby adoption is about the ecosystem rather than the language and community, even though -they- personally are mostly more interested in the latter. I do, however, think he should have dropped those slides even so; I knew as I was reading it that they'd provoke the counterproductive (from his POV) reaction that you've exemplified in a sufficient percentage of the audience to be not worth it.