I'm also not a ruby person but I'd think it would not be too hard to say "method 'name=' does not exist. Value objects do not provide setter methods by default." Or similar. It would almost be better if it didn't make the "did you mean?" suggestion which confuses the issue.
IMO the root issue is the language syntax allows you to write `foo.bar = 123` instead of `foo.bar= 123` which kind of obscures the fact that `bar=` is a method.
If you've never written Ruby I 100% agree that the NoMethodError is perhaps confusing. However as others have noted this is just a really simple core concept you learn right away! This is your standard "oops, I called something that doesn't exist" message and contains everything you need to see where you went wrong.
99% of the time that message is all you need; for the other 1% you can use a debugger to pause things and see e.g. what methods `foo` does support.
To be honest I did understand what was wrong from the error message on first read, despite not knowing ruby (but probably aided by experience in other languages with similar patterns). I think what the distant grandparent was noticing is valid though: the error message is accurately but tangential to the reason for the error. Sure, you can figure it out. Probably you can figure it out without needing to be a great master of the language. But to criticize somebody for wondering whether an error message could be more informative/relevant, when that is clearly possible, I find galling.
