[galfarragem]

> it doesn't sound like it brings anything new to the table

A fast and typed Ruby, isn't it enough? ;)

[eropple]

It's not a Ruby. It doesn't even pretend to be a Ruby. I mean, to be a Ruby, this needs to work:

    a = Object.new
    list_of_modules.each { |mod| a.extend(mod) }

Ruby cannot be separated from its dynamism and to claim it can is misleading.

[lmm]

OCaml (well, actually Scala in my case, but I can understand why people wouldn't want to have to use the JVM) is already that, as far as I can see. What is it that Crystal offers that OCaml doesn't?

[coldtea]

Doesn't share the fugly OCaml syntax.

[uryga]

Not a great way to convince OCaml fans to use something else.

[oblio]

All 3 of them? Jokes aside, they're probably aiming for Ruby fans (or fans of other dynamic languages).

[coldtea]

I doubt Crystal's marketing goals are to convince OCaml fans...

[galfarragem]

A gentle learning curve for developers with a Ruby background.

[pimeys]

Is this the same with Crystal, as shown in Ruby:

  irb(main):001:0> "".methods.size
  => 170

  irb(main):002:0> 0.methods.size
  => 133

If it is, I mean, I don't see it being so fast.

[yxhuvud]

What on earth has the size of the list of methods to do with performance?

[_uhtu]

The number of methods in the standard library really doesn't impact performance in a compiled language since you can tree shake the stuff that isn't used. And even if you don't tree shake having lots of methods isn't really a noticable performance loss in compile to binary languages since you don't need to spin up a VM