[steveklabnik]

Original source here, by the way: https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/conventions-in-ruby-and-the-pri...

All of those things are "dangerous" in this sense.

It is arbitrary, but that's how Ruby works; there's a gray area shared understanding of concepts. The "principle of least surprise" is literally about Matz, and Matz alone. Yes, something may be surprising to you, or not, but it's not about you. This shared taste/understandings/whatever is just how convention works. (Or at least, it did when I was involved with Ruby; it's been a couple of years so I'm out of touch!)

[choward]

I have also strayed away from Ruby so I'm out of touch too. The arbitrariness helped get me into Ruby and helped get me out. It's cool if that's your sort of thing but as I get older I'm starting to dislike arbitrary things more and more.

Anyway, I didn't realize who I was replying to when I replied to your first comment. I've seen a few of your presentations and read a lot of your work and I'm a fan.

[steveklabnik]

I think we followed similar paths; I still love Ruby but my tastes have changed. Rails is still really hard to beat in its area though.

Thank you!

[joelbluminator]

I think we're all really great in cherry-picking something lacking in a language and then describing the whole eco-system as bad. What language are you using now? Were there seriously no bad design decisions made in said language?

[vikeri]

If you like dynamic languages I find it hard to pick out poor design decisions in Clojure.

[joelbluminator]

I haven't watched this since I'm not into Clojure https://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/83j0hm/clojure_the... Just putting it out here to emphasise the point that ALL languages have controversial parts.

[cutler]

Yes Clojure is the only language which surpasses Ruby in composability.