Appreciate the reply. I don't feel experienced enough in Ruby to make an informed judgement yet on the language, but I like what I have learned so far.
I wonder if the use of DSL reflects a poor choice for solving the problem rather than an inherent problem in Ruby?
> I think a lot of programmers love to build up an encyclopedia of obscure knowledge on how to do things in their languages. It gives them a sense of dominance or something. Personally, I don't want strange syntaxes that help in some obscure case. I want straight forward code that is both straight forward to read and to write.
I agree 100% and this behaviour can be found in programmers across all languages.
I wonder if the use of DSL reflects a poor choice for solving the problem rather than an inherent problem in Ruby?
> I think a lot of programmers love to build up an encyclopedia of obscure knowledge on how to do things in their languages. It gives them a sense of dominance or something. Personally, I don't want strange syntaxes that help in some obscure case. I want straight forward code that is both straight forward to read and to write.
I agree 100% and this behaviour can be found in programmers across all languages.