4 ms·

I'm having trouble seeing your point here. You seem to be saying "features present in my language of choice are right and proper, while features not present we

I'm having trouble seeing your point here. You seem to be saying "features present in my language of choice are right and proper, while features not present were omitted for good and sufficient reasons and were a Bad Idea to begin with." Also, there's a real muddle in your third paragraph. Are you claiming that Ruby culture is comparably proscriptive to Java or C++ culture? If not, it's tu quoque and the original author's point stands. But if your intent is to refute the central premise of his argument, you should really say so.

scott_s 17y ago
I'm not necessarily saying the features omitted from C++ were omitted for "good and sufficient" reasons, and I certainly didn't say they were a bad idea. What I am saying is they were omitted for reasons other than the author states. (The reason I'm not saying they are good and sufficient is that starts a discussion about the design of C++, which I think is too far off topic.) I can't speak with confidence about Ruby's culture. But the talk I've seen about not freely modifying arbitrary classes seems to run counter with the author's main point, since that is the sort of freedom he's talking about. That sort of proscription reminds me of warnings against global state in procedural programs, and shared state in parallel programs.